Alternative remedy and customs burden of proof did not save the petitioner; confiscation of seized gold was upheld.

Alternative statutory remedy did not bar the writ petition where the objection was not timely raised and the matter had remained pending for years, so Article 226 jurisdiction was entertained. On the seizure issue, the Court treated the panchanama as showing seizure by customs authorities under the Customs Act, attracting the statutory burden under Section 123; it also held that taking over the articles by Gold Control authorities amounted to lawful seizure under the Gold (Control) Act. The petitioner failed to explain lawful possession or displace the presumption of smuggled goods, and the challenge that the articles were not primary gold could not be raised for the first time in writ proceedings. Confiscation and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy; (ii) whether the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 applied on the facts of seizure and whether the confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. Where the objection is not timely raised and the petition has remained pending for years, the Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the facts, the respondents had not pressed the objection at the appropriate stage and the petition had been pending for a long period, making relegation to the statutory remedy unjust.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected, and the writ petition was entertained on merits.

Issue (ii): whether the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 applied on the facts of seizure and whether the confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 123 applies when the goods are seized under the Customs Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. The Court distinguished the rule in Gian Chand where goods were first seized by the police and later handed over to customs, and held that in the present case the panchanama showed a seizure by the Customs authorities under the Customs Act. The Court also held that the taking over of the articles by the Gold Control authorities amounted to a lawful seizure under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of explaining lawful possession or proving that the articles were not smuggled goods, and the contention regarding the articles not being primary gold was not open to be urged for the first time in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty orders were upheld; no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on merits, the confiscation of the gold articles was sustained, and the impugned orders were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: When customs authorities effect a lawful seizure under the Customs Act itself, the statutory burden under Section 123 is attracted, and a seizure by the Gold Control authorities from police custody can also amount to lawful seizure under the Gold (Control) Act.

---