9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging common order under Customs Act, 1962 and Gold (Control) Act, 1968 - Confiscation of gold and gold ornaments, imposition of penalties, denial of cross-examination, assay method used, burden of proof on Customs. Analysis: In the present case, the appellant challenged a common order dated 1-6-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna, under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appellant, a licensed Gold Dealer, was intercepted with melted gold of foreign origin and new gold ornaments without proper documentation. The seized items were valued at Rs. 3,24,340/-. The appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the source of the gold. The adjudication resulted in the confiscation of the gold and gold ornaments, along with penalties imposed under the respective Acts. The appellant contested the foreign origin of the gold, arguing that the Customs failed to prove it. The appellant also highlighted the lack of proper assay of the gold and denial of the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses, claiming a violation of natural justice principles. The appellant's consultant argued that there was no conclusive evidence proving the foreign origin of the gold and criticized the reliance on a local goldsmith's opinion for assay instead of a Government Mint report. The consultant emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Customs, which they failed to discharge. The appellant's visit to Gorakhpur was explained as a delivery to customers, and the seized items were meant for customers who were unavailable. The consultant cited a Tribunal decision to support the argument that the burden of proof was on the Customs. Furthermore, the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination was deemed a serious violation of natural justice principles, as per another Tribunal decision. The Revenue representative justified the confiscation and penalties, reiterating the reasoning in the impugned order. However, upon careful examination, the Tribunal identified two significant flaws in the order. Firstly, the gold was not assayed by an authorized expert or the Government Mint, and secondly, the denial of cross-examination was noted. The gold was assayed by a local goldsmith using the touchstone method, leading to an inconclusive caratage result. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of an unassailable assay report from a competent agency in cases involving foreign gold. Additionally, the denial of cross-examination, especially when the appellant contested the ownership of the seized items, was considered a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal found these infirmities grave and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals.
|
