9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of the Constitution, absolute and quashed the impugned notice to show cause issued under Sec. 79 of the said Act. 2. The respondent is a licensed dealer in gold. On March 22, 1973, the customs officers searched the godown and the dwelling house of the respondent. On such search they recovered 10 pieces of gold sovereigns and one piece of gold rod from the bed-room of the respondent, but nothing was, however, recovered from the shop. The respondent was absent from his house at that time. One Sakshi Gopal Dey, the brother-in-law (wife s brother) of the respondent, made a statement to the effect that the gold sovereigns belonged to the house and were the gifts of the respondent s father to his grandsons and grand daughters (the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the gold rod is 4 tolas 8 1/2 annas. In the impugned notice the weight of gold sovereigns has been mentioned as 53.10 grms. and that of the gold rod as 79.45 grms. It appears that in the notice there has been a mistake in stating the weight of the gold rod and the gold sovereigns. 3. The learned Judge placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Collector of Customs, Calcutta Anr. v. Jay Krishna Saha Anr. - 1977 C.H.N. 469 and held that no declaration was required to be given as the total quantity of gold that was recovered from the house of the respondent belonged to the family of the respondent, and that the same did not exceed 4000 grms., as provided in sub-section (5) (b) of Sec. 16 of the Act. In that view of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake manufacture or prepare primary gold (other than standard gold bar) by melting, processing or covering any article, ornament or standard gold bar acquired, accepted or received by him in accordance with the provisions of Part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 or, as the case may be, the Gold (Control) Ordinance 1968, or of this Act. It is, therefore, clear from the proviso to Sec. 20 that a dealer may in the process of making or manufacturing or preparing ornaments make or manufacture primary gold other than standard gold bar. It has been stated already that the statement that was made by the respondent s brother-in-law at the time the seizure was made was that the gold rod was made by the respondent in the process of preparing hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the impugned notice to show cause. There can be no doubt that this Court in writ proceeding does not enter into any question of fact, and that in such cases this Court is only concerned with the question of jurisdiction of the authorities to issue the impugned notice to show cause. But when the jurisdiction depends upon the existence or otherwise of certain facts and those facts are either admitted or not denied this Court can, in our view, take notice of the same in considering the question of jurisdiction of the Authorities to issue the show cause notice. It is not disputed that if the gold rod had been prepared by the respondent in course of manufacturing the ornaments of his wife, the respondent will not be liable for any offence unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
