9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against order of Collector of Customs, Confiscation of gold and gold ornaments, Contravention of Gold (Control) Act, Validity of penalties imposed. Analysis: The appeals were transferred to the Tribunal from the Gold Control Administrator. The case involved the search of business premises resulting in the recovery of gold and gold ornaments without maintained accounts. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation of seized gold, redemption on payment of fine, and imposed penalties. The appellants argued that the confiscated items belonged to customers, supported by statements and affidavits, challenging the confiscation and fines. The Collector found contraventions of Gold (Control) Act sections and imposed penalties. The Tribunal examined the contraventions alleged under various sections of the Gold (Control) Act. The Collector's findings were challenged, particularly regarding the lack of evidence for contraventions. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Collector's conclusions and lack of specific instances of contraventions. The contravention under Section 42(ii) was established based on admissions made by one of the appellants regarding the possession of primary gold exceeding permissible limits. Regarding the contravention of Section 55, the appellants' argument that the prescribed form did not provide for maintaining primary gold records was dismissed. The Tribunal found evidence of violations in maintaining records and noted that the appellants failed to prove that primary gold left over was unaccounted due to incomplete orders. The Collector's order of confiscation of the entire seized gold was deemed invalid due to lack of evidence linking the gold to contraventions by the appellants. While acknowledging that not all seized gold belonged to customers, the Tribunal upheld the contraventions of Sections 42(ii) and 55. The fine imposed by the Collector was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 10,000 for redemption of primary gold belonging to the appellants. The penalties imposed on the appellants were deemed reasonable considering the contraventions committed. The appellants were entitled to a refund of excess fine amounts paid, if any.
|
