1988 (2) TMI 308 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Transfer of appeals to the Tribunal
- Alleged contravention of Sections 27 and 52 of the Gold (Control) Act
- Confiscation of seized gold and imposition of fine and penalty
- Interpretation of Section 52 regarding change in constitution of partnership firm
- Justification of fines and penalties imposed
- Consideration of Trade Notice No. 2/86 in relation to the case

Transfer of Appeals to the Tribunal:
The three appeals were transferred to the Tribunal from the Gold Control Administrator against a common order-in-original. The appeals were clubbed together due to common questions of law and facts for a joint hearing and decision.

Alleged Contravention of Sections 27 and 52 of the Gold (Control) Act:
The case involved a partnership firm carrying on gold dealers business without obtaining a gold dealer's license, leading to the seizure of gold by the authorities. The appellants were accused of contravening Sections 27 and 52 of the Gold (Control) Act.

Confiscation of Seized Gold and Imposition of Fine and Penalty:
After investigations and adjudication, the Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation of seized gold but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. Penalties were imposed on the partners of the firm. The appellants challenged these orders through the appeals.

Interpretation of Section 52 and Justification of Fines and Penalties Imposed:
The legal analysis focused on the interpretation of Section 52, emphasizing that it applies to the change in the constitution of a partnership firm, not a proprietary concern. The Collector's decision to order confiscation was upheld due to the partnership firm's failure to obtain a gold dealer's license. The justification of fines and penalties imposed was debated, with arguments regarding the reasonableness and leniency of the Collector's actions.

Consideration of Trade Notice No. 2/86:
The Trade Notice issued by the Collector of Customs in 1986 was considered in the context of the case. It exempted gold dealers from obtaining prior approval for changes in partnership involving real brothers or sons/daughters. This notice played a role in the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of seized gold but set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants. The fine was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2,500 considering the Trade Notice and the circumstances of the case. The appeals were rejected subject to the modification in the quantum of fine and penalties, granting the appellants consequential relief.