Jurisdictional defect without failure of justice will not upset appellate proceedings; licence status on seizure date governed outcome.

A jurisdictional defect in the forum of appeal did not vitiate the appellate order where the proceedings had been carried through on merits and no failure of justice was shown. The respondent's regulatory status was determined by the licence position on the relevant date: having surrendered the goldsmith licence and obtained a gold dealer's licence before seizure, he was treated as a licensed gold dealer rather than merely a certified goldsmith. On that factual basis, the confiscation and penalty challenge failed, and the order in the respondent's favour was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was incompetent for want of jurisdiction and, if so, whether the defect vitiated the order; (ii) whether the respondent was to be treated as a certified goldsmith or as a licensed gold dealer, and whether the confiscation and penalty action was sustainable on the facts.

Issue (i): whether the appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was incompetent for want of jurisdiction and, if so, whether the defect vitiated the order.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had directed the respondent to prefer an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), and the respondent acted on that direction. Although the appellate forum was found to be not the proper forum under the applicable appeal provision, the defect did not cause failure of justice. Reliance was placed on the principle that a jurisdictional objection should not succeed where no failure of justice has occurred and where the proceedings have already been carried through on merits.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the appellate order was not set aside on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent was to be treated as a certified goldsmith or as a licensed gold dealer, and whether the confiscation and penalty action was sustainable on the facts.

Analysis: The record showed that the respondent had surrendered the goldsmith licence shortly before the seizure and had obtained a gold dealer's licence. On that footing, the respondent was found to have ceased to function merely as a goldsmith and to have come within the gold dealer regime. The factual foundation for treating the transaction as one governed by the provisions applicable to a gold dealer was therefore accepted, and the respondent's explanation was corroborated by the licence position on the date of seizure.

Conclusion: The respondent was treated as a licensed gold dealer and the order in his favour was sustained on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on jurisdiction and on merits, and the order in favour of the respondent stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional error in the forum of appeal will not justify interference where it has caused no failure of justice, and the applicable regulatory status must be determined from the licence held on the relevant date.

---