9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of confiscation of gold and gold ornaments, Contravention of Gold (Control) Act, Opportunity given to owner for confiscation, Ownership of seized gold, Compliance with Section 79 of Gold (Control) Act, Presumption of ownership under Section 99 of Gold (Control) Act. Analysis: The appeal challenged the order of confiscation of 302.000 gms of gold and gold ornaments, allowed to be released on payment of a fine. The appellant argued that there was no contravention of the Gold (Control) Act regarding the seized gold and that the owners were not given an opportunity before confiscation. The appellant also claimed that the seized gold belonged to his customers and were accounted for in the GS-13 register. However, the department contended that the appellant had the opportunity to segregate the unaccounted gold and ornaments but failed to provide ownership details until later. The Collector (Appeals) had set aside the penalty but maintained the fine, leading to the appeal. The Gold (Control) Officers found a discrepancy in the appellant's statutory records during a search, leading to the seizure of unaccounted gold and ornaments. The appellant failed to provide ownership details initially, only doing so after a significant delay. The Panchnama indicated that the appellant segregated the unaccounted items himself, suggesting a contravention of the Gold (Control) Act. The appellant's claim that the seized items belonged to his customers was not accepted due to lack of documentary evidence or timely disclosure of ownership details. The appellant's argument that the seized gold did not belong to him but to his customers was rejected as he failed to provide evidence to the contrary. The legal presumption under Section 99 of the Gold (Control) Act states that the possessor is presumed to be the owner unless proven otherwise. As the appellant did not discharge his burden of proving ownership by customers, the confiscation was deemed valid. The Collector (Appeals) was criticized for leniency in setting aside the penalty but maintaining the fine, considering the gravity of the offense and the appellant's false defenses. In conclusion, the appeal was rejected as the seized gold was deemed liable for confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act. The Collector (Appeals) was noted for leniency in reducing the penalty but maintaining the fine, which was upheld in the judgment.
|
