Non-declaration of gold by passenger does not by itself prove smuggling; confiscation with redemption and penalties upheld.

Non-declaration of gold by a passenger was treated as insufficient to establish smuggling, and the Tribunal sustained confiscation with an option to redeem the gold on payment of fine and duty. Finding the facts covered by its earlier decision on similar circumstances, it refused to interfere with the concurrent order that allowed redemption rather than absolute confiscation. The penalties imposed under the Act were also upheld, and the Revenue's request for enhanced redemption fine and higher penalties was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the gold recovered from the passenger was liable to absolute confiscation with enhancement of redemption fine and penalty, or whether the order allowing redemption and upholding penalties called for interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal found the matter covered by its earlier decision on similar facts. It held that the facts did not establish smuggling and, at best, disclosed non-declaration of gold by the passenger. The Tribunal accepted the view that the quantity and circumstances did not justify interference with the concurrent finding of confiscation coupled with an option to redeem on payment of fine and duty. The penalties imposed under the Act were also found to be and warranted no enhancement.

Conclusion: The order of confiscation with redemption option and the penalties was upheld, and the Revenue's plea for absolute confiscation and higher penalties was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the adjudicatory order in favour of redemption on payment of fine and duty, along with the penalties, remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts disclose non-declaration of gold by a passenger but do not establish smuggling, the order of confiscation with redemption fine and penalty can be sustained and need not be interfered with.

---