1996 (10) TMI 106 - SC - Customs

Confiscation of gold kara upheld after admission of purchase, conversion, and illegal import under Customs and FERA

SC upheld confiscation of the gold, finding the admission that the respondent purchased and converted gold into a kara and brought it without permission ... Natural Justice - confiscation of gold - Seized goods - right to cross-examine witnesses - entitlement to cross-examine the Panch witnesses and the Seizing Officer for the goods seized in contravention of the FERA & Customs Duty Act​​​​​​​ - HELD THAT:- It is true that the petitioner had confessed that he purchased the gold and had brought it. He admitted that he purchased the gold and converted it as a Kara. In this situation, bringing the gold without permission of the authority is in contravention of the Customs Duty Act and also FERA. When the petitioner seeks for cross-examination of the witnesses who have said that the recovery was made from the petitioner, necessarily an opportunity requires to be given for the cross-examination of the witnesses as regards the place at which recovery was made. Since the dispute concerns the confiscation of the jewellery, whether at conveyor belt or at the green channel, perhaps the witnesses were required to be called. But in view of confession made by him, it binds him and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the failure to give him the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not violative of principle of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner had retracted within six days from the confession. Therefore, he is entitled to cross-examine the panch witnesses before the authority takes a decision on proof of the offence. We find no force in this contention. The Customs officials are not police officers. The confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner. So there is no need to call Panch witnesses for examination and cross-examination by the petitioner. It is contended that under the Rules jewellery is exempted articles. Kara being a symbol of the religious wear by the Sikh community, it is a jewellery exempted from the Act and it cannot be confiscated. In view of the admission that he had purchased gold, converted as Kara and brought as such, he necessarily used it. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of exemption. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the authority warranting interference. Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the confiscation of gold, FAX machine, and video camera under the Customs Duty Act and FERA, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the exemption of jewellery under the Rules, and the legality of the orders passed by the authority.Confiscation of Goods:The appellate authority referred the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration, resulting in the confiscation of gold, FAX machine, and video camera along with a compounding fee. The orders were confirmed on appeal and revision. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was summarily dismissed. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the confiscation order, as the petitioner's admission of purchasing and bringing the gold without permission violated the Customs Duty Act and FERA.Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses:The petitioner contended that he was entitled to cross-examine the Panch witnesses and the Seizing Officer, as the recovery of goods was made in contravention of FERA and Customs Duty Act. However, the Court held that the confession made by the petitioner, admitting to purchasing and converting gold, bound him. Despite the retraction of the confession, the admission remained valid, and there was no requirement to call Panch witnesses for examination and cross-examination.Exemption of Jewellery:The petitioner argued that as a Kara, a symbol of religious wear by the Sikh community, the jewellery should be exempted from confiscation under the Rules. However, since the petitioner admitted to purchasing and using the gold to make the Kara, he was not entitled to the benefit of exemption. The Court found no illegality in the authority's decision not to exempt the Kara from confiscation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the orders of confiscation and finding no grounds for interference. The Court held that the petitioner's admission of purchasing and bringing the gold without permission, along with the lack of necessity to cross-examine witnesses, justified the confiscation and denial of exemption for the Kara.