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 violated Customs and FERA, and bound the respondent despite later retraction. The Court held that although cross-examination of panch witnesses and the seizing officer might have aided determination of where recovery occurred, the failure to permit it did not violate natural justice in view of the confession. Kara worn as religious jewellery did not attract exemption because it was admitted to have been purchased, converted and used, so no interference with the order.

---

---

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.

---