1999 (1) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ased 5 gold coins of Indian marking but confiscated rest of 13 gold coins under Section 71 of the Gold Control Act. The learned Commissioner has refrained from imposing any penalty under the Act. 2. Learned Advocate submits that there was time gap of about 6 months between the initial seizure of gold by the Enforcement Directorate and the taking over of the same by the Customs Officers. He also submits that apart from the delay in recording the statement, the show cause notice was issued only on 12-7-1990 i.e. almost a year after the seizure by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. He submits that seizure by the Enforcement Directorate on 30-7-1989 would be relevant date of the seizure for the purpose of issue of the notice under S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the impugned order was passed instead. The learned Advocate also submits the said order does not discuss as to how Section 123 (ibid) is applicable in this case. Similarly, the order is silent on the question of issue of notice within 6 months. 3. Learned DR submits that nowhere in the original proceedings the appellants have claimed the goods and hence, it is rightly confiscated absolutely. Regarding applicability of Section 123 (ibid), he submits that since the said section is invoked in the show cause notice which was issued within 6 months from the date of taking over of the gold by the Customs, therefore, the onus of proving the licit possession of the goods is on the owner. He cites the case of Harbans Lal, reported in 1993 (67) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impugned shows that this evidence have never been analysed in the impugned order-in-original. As this involves the question of time bar relating to the commencement of quasi-judicial proceedings themselves, the order impugned being silent thereon clearly suffers from the infirmity of being non-speaking order. Secondly, it is not disputed that the initial seizure was by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, and that the customs officers took over the goods after a lapse of many months. The show cause notice invokes the applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, but a perusal of the order-in-original impugned does not show any discussion or analysis on why the drastic provisions of Section 123 (ibid) would be applicable in this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X