Statutory threshold for affected person status under forfeiture law must be proved before proceedings can begin.

A person can be treated as an affected person under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 only where the convicted relative's offence satisfies the statutory threshold in section 2(1) read with section 2(2)(a)(i), namely conviction for an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh rupees. Where the record contains no finding that this condition is met, the Competent Authority cannot assume the appellant falls within the Act. The burden to establish the statutory foundation for forfeiture proceedings rests on the authority, and without that finding the initiation of proceedings lacks jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could be treated as an affected person under section 2(2)(a)(i) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, when no finding was recorded that the husband's conviction under the Customs Act, 1962, was in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees.

Analysis: The applicability of the Act depended on the statutory condition in section 2(1) read with section 2(2)(a)(i), namely that the convicted person must have been convicted of an offence in relation to goods of a value exceeding one lakh of rupees. The record contained no finding that the husband's conviction satisfied that condition. The burden to establish the statutory basis for treating the appellant as an affected person lay on the Competent Authority, and in the absence of such a finding the foundation for initiating forfeiture proceedings was missing.

Conclusion: The appellant was wrongly treated as an affected person and the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against her.

---