1981 (4) TMI 109 - CGOVT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold under Customs Act and Gold Control Act.
2. Claim for release of gold by the applicant.
3. Determination of whether gold was smuggled.
4. Applicant's liability for personal penalty under Customs Act.
5. Verification of markings on seized gold.
6. Application of Section 120 of Customs Act regarding confiscated goods.
7. Presumption under Section 123 of Customs Act.
8. Conditions for presumption under Section 123.
9. Reasonable belief of Customs Officers at the time of seizure.
10. Conduct of applicant and associates during the search.
11. Purity of the seized gold.
12. Invocation of Section 123 in the case.
13. Applicant's explanations and burden of proof under Section 123.
14. Involvement of the applicant in dealing with smuggled gold.
15. Confiscation of gold and imposition of penalty on the applicant.

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the confiscation of gold under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act, with a focus on determining whether the gold in question was smuggled and the applicant's liability for a personal penalty under the Customs Act. The applicant had claimed no connection with the confiscated gold, seeking its release. However, the government found that the gold had already been confiscated under both Acts, making the release claim invalid. The central issue was whether the applicant could prove his lack of involvement with the smuggled gold to avoid personal penalties.

During the hearing, a request was made for verifying markings on the seized gold to establish its origin. Despite efforts to obtain photographic evidence, the court's seal hindered the process. The application of Section 120 of the Customs Act was discussed, emphasizing that confiscated goods remain liable for confiscation even if their form changes. The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act was crucial in determining whether the seized goods were smuggled.

The judgment highlighted the conditions for the presumption under Section 123, shifting the burden of proof onto the person from whom the goods were seized. The reasonable belief of Customs Officers at the time of seizure played a significant role, supported by specific information and the conduct of the applicant and his associates during the search. The purity of the seized gold, higher than typical Indian standards, raised doubts about the applicant's explanations regarding the origin of the gold.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, citing admissions by involved parties that incriminated the applicant in dealing with the smuggled gold. Consequently, the government upheld the confiscation of the gold under the Customs Act and imposed a penalty on the applicant for his involvement. The revision application was deemed without merit and rejected based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.