1988 (3) TMI 350 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant was required to make a declaration in respect of the seized gold.
2. Whether the Collector could legally order confiscation of the seized gold.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant, a partner in a firm with a Gold Dealer's License, had gold ornaments seized by Gold Control officers from a bank locker jointly held with his wife. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The appellant argued that since the gold belonged to his wife, he was not obligated to declare it. The Collector referred to the definition of "family" in the Gold (Control) Act, which the appellant's counsel deemed irrelevant. The Act required declarations for gold owned, possessed, held, or controlled by specific entities. The Collector did not establish the gold's ownership or possession by the appellant or his joint family. The wife claimed the gold as her streedhana property and had made a declaration in Calcutta. The appellant was not required to declare the gold as it did not belong to him or the joint family.

Issue 2:
The Collector's order lacked a finding on the ownership of the seized gold. Even if the appellant possessed or controlled the gold, the Collector could not order confiscation if it belonged to the wife as her streedhana property. The Act required specific findings of the wife's knowledge or connivance for confiscation. Since the wife's declaration was accepted, indicating ownership, the Collector erred in ordering confiscation without evidence of the wife's involvement in any contravention. The appellant's lack of declaration did not warrant confiscation. The appeal was allowed, the confiscation order set aside, and any paid fine directed to be refunded to the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay, provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the reasoning behind the decision rendered by the tribunal.