Confiscation of foreign-marked gold upheld, while penalty under the repealed Gold Control Act was reduced.

Foreign-marked gold bars and gold ornaments were held liable to confiscation where confiscation under the Customs Act had already been upheld and that finding had attained finality, so the parallel challenge to confiscation could not succeed. Penalty under the Gold Control Act was examined separately; a belated contention that the jewellery had been declared was not accepted as it had not been raised before the adjudicating authority. Even so, because the Gold Control Act had been repealed long earlier, the penalty was found excessive and reduced. The confiscation was sustained, while the penalty was curtailed to a nominal amount.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of foreign-marked gold bars and gold ornaments was liable to be set aside. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under the Gold Control Act, 1968 required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of foreign-marked gold bars and gold ornaments was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The items had been confiscated not only under the Gold Control Act, 1968 but also under the Customs Act, 1962. The confiscation under the Customs Act had already been upheld, and the parallel challenge could not succeed once that confiscation had attained finality.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the gold bars and gold ornaments was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Gold Control Act, 1968 required interference.

Analysis: Penalties had been imposed under both enactments. The contention that the jewellery was declared was treated as a new plea not taken before the adjudicating authority. However, since the Gold Control Act had been repealed long earlier, the penalty was considered excessive and warranted reduction.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 5,000.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalty, while the confiscation was sustained.

---