1986 (12) TMI 135 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of search and seizure of goods from a bank locker.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Gold (Control) Act.
3. Merits of the case regarding the nature of confiscated goods as ornaments.
4. Confiscation of goods under the Gold (Control) Act.

Analysis:

1. The first issue pertains to the legality of the search and seizure of goods from a bank locker without a specific search warrant for the locker. The appellant argued that since the search warrant was for the residential premises only, the search of the locker was illegal. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that if the family consented to the search of the lockers during the search of the residential premises, any objection should have been raised at that time. The Tribunal cited legal precedent to support the notion that an illegal search does not invalidate the seizure of goods liable for confiscation. Therefore, the objection raised by the appellant was deemed unsustainable.

2. The second issue involves the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Gold (Control) Act. The appellant contended that the appeal under the Gold (Control) Act should have been filed with the Collector (Appeals) rather than directly with the Tribunal. However, due to the composite nature of the order under both the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument to hear the appeal directly. This decision aimed to avoid duplication of work and expedite the resolution of the matter.

3. The third issue revolves around the nature of the confiscated goods as ornaments. The appellant argued that the goods were ornaments imported under the Baggage Rules, permissible within certain limits. The Tribunal acknowledged the evidence supporting the use of the goods as ornaments in Dubai and their importation in small quantities to avoid detection. Consequently, the Tribunal found that confiscation of the goods under the Customs Act and the imposition of penalties were unwarranted, leading to the reversal of the adjudicating authority's decision.

4. The final issue concerns the confiscation of goods under the Gold (Control) Act. The appellant contended that the confiscated goods were ornaments and not subject to confiscation under the Act. However, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act and determined that the goods did not meet the criteria to be classified as ornaments under Indian law. Despite this, considering the circumstances and the possibility of the appellant's belief that the goods were ornaments, the Tribunal allowed the owner to redeem the goods upon payment of a fine.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on various grounds, including the legality of the search, jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the nature of the confiscated goods, ultimately allowing the redemption of the goods under the Gold (Control) Act upon payment of a fine.