9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold under Gold (Control) Act and Customs Act. 2. Validity of seizure and personal penalty imposed. 3. Credibility of statements given by the appellants. 4. Applicability of provisions under the Gold (Control) Act. 5. Determination of possession of gold by the appellant Madhu Agarwal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to appeals filed against an order confiscating seven pieces of primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act and the Customs Act. The gold, weighing 1,308.300 gms, was seized from the possession of Madhu Agarwal, resulting in a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed on each appellant. The case revolved around the validity of the seizure and the credibility of the statements provided by the appellants. The Customs Officers intercepted the appellants based on intelligence, where the gold was allegedly found in possession of Madhu Agarwal. However, the appellants retracted their statements, leading to a dispute regarding the authenticity of the seizure and the voluntariness of the statements provided. The Department contended that the gold was rightfully seized and that the statements indicated possession by Madhu Agarwal. The critical issue addressed was whether the gold was indeed recovered from the possession of Madhu Agarwal. The inventory list and the show cause notice revealed discrepancies, casting doubt on the Department's version of events. The court found it implausible that such a significant quantity of gold could be concealed in a lady's private organ, especially considering the circumstances of the seizure and the involvement of male inspectors. Furthermore, the court examined the voluntariness and truthfulness of the statements given by the appellants. Given the dubious nature of the seizure and the incredibility of the Department's narrative, the court concluded that the statements were not reliable. Additionally, it was highlighted that the proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act were not maintainable due to the lack of proper seizure under the relevant provisions. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the penalties imposed but confirming the confiscation of the gold. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing possession and the credibility of evidence in cases involving confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act and the Customs Act.
|
