9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of confiscation of gold ornaments, fine, and penalty under Section 27(1) of Gold (Control) Act. Analysis: The appeal challenged an order of confiscation of new gold ornaments weighing 925.000 gms, a fine of Rs. 15,000, and a penalty of Rs. 2,500 imposed on the appellant. The case originated from information received by the department regarding the possession of new gold ornaments without valid documents. Upon inspection, the appellant was found with the ornaments and German silver screws. Subsequent investigations revealed conflicting claims regarding the ownership of the seized gold. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The appellant contested the contravention of Section 27(1) and highlighted procedural lapses in the investigation, citing judgments to support his defense. The Collector relied on the appellant's initial statement and dismissed subsequent explanations. During the appeal hearing, the appellant's counsel argued against the contravention of Section 27(1), emphasizing the lack of evidence and procedural shortcomings in the investigation. The department supported the Collector's order, alleging false claims by the appellant and asserting the sufficiency of the initial statement as evidence. The Tribunal examined the evidence and submissions, noting that the sole charge against the appellant was the contravention of Section 27(1) for conducting business as a gold dealer without a license. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of satisfactory evidence to establish such contravention. The Tribunal analyzed the requirements of Section 27(1) and clarified that a license is mandatory for conducting business as a gold dealer. It highlighted the absence of evidence demonstrating prior engagement in gold dealing by the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the mere presence of the appellant with gold ornaments for sale did not constitute carrying on business as a dealer in gold. It distinguished between a single transaction and continuous business activities, noting that the evidence did not support the charge under Section 27(1. The Tribunal highlighted the failure to charge the appellant under Section 55 despite admissions, leading to the appeal's success. The order of confiscation, fine, and penalty were set aside, granting the appellant consequential relief.
|
