Authorities must decide gold ownership claims within six months without bias from original confiscation order

Bombay HC directed respondents to decide petitioner's representations regarding ownership of 32.380 kgs of confiscated gold within six months, without being influenced by the original confiscation order dated 13th January, 2023. Court ordered status-quo maintenance of the gold until decision and mandated personal hearing for petitioner. If petitioner proves ownership, respondents must restore the gold, equivalent amount, or compensate at current market value. Petition disposed of with directions for fresh consideration of ownership claims.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve the legality of a Show Cause Notice dated 12/12/2019 and an Order-in-Original dated 13/1/2023 related to the confiscation of 490.95 grams of gold, ownership disputes, and the failure to consider representations made by the Petitioner.

Confiscation of Gold:
The Petitioner, a jeweler, claimed ownership of 490.95 grams of gold and entrusted it to a logistics company for transport. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) detained 32.380 kgs of gold, including the Petitioner's gold, alleging smuggling activities by logistic companies. The Petitioner's ownership claim was not considered, and the DRI issued a Show Cause Notice for confiscation without involving the Petitioner or acknowledging their ownership.

Ownership Dispute:
Despite the Petitioner's assertions of ownership and providing relevant documents, the DRI did not recognize their claim. The DRI's Order-in-Original dated 13th January, 2023, confiscated the gold without addressing the ownership claims made by various parties, including the Petitioner. The Petitioner's request for an amendment to the order to recognize their ownership was also rejected.

Court Decision and Directions:
The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to reconsider the Petitioner's representations within six months, giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner and without being influenced by the previous order. Until a decision is reached, the status quo regarding the gold should be maintained. If the Petitioner's ownership is proven, the Respondents must return the gold or provide an equivalent amount or compensate the Petitioner based on the market value. The Court made the ruling absolute in these terms, disposing of the petition with no costs imposed.

---