High Court quashes silver confiscation due to lack of evidence; orders return to petitioner

The High Court found the confiscation of seized silver bricks and coins of Nepalese origin unsustainable due to lack of evidence supporting the claim. Additionally, the Court held that the seized silver coins with less than 40% silver content by weight but more than 40% by value were protected by Government Orders 57 and 58 of 1968, leading to the quashing of confiscation orders and directing the return of the seized items to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized silver bricks and coins of Nepalese origin.
2. Challenge to the finding that the silver bricks were of Nepalese origin.
3. Interpretation of Government Orders 57 and 58 of 1968 regarding silver coins with less than 40% silver content.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a silversmith, had his shop near the Nepalese border where Nepalese citizens purchased silver ornaments with Nepalese silver coins. Customs Authorities raided his shop, seized silver bricks and coins of Nepalese origin, and initiated proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The authorities found the petitioner in possession of smuggled goods and ordered confiscation under relevant sections. Despite appeals and revisions, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the confiscation.

2. The High Court examined the finding that the silver bricks were of Nepalese origin. The petitioner argued that there was no evidence supporting this claim. Upon reviewing the petitioner's statement, the Court noted that while the petitioner admitted melting old silver ornaments to make the silver bricks, there was no admission of using Nepalese coins or ornaments of Nepalese origin. The Court found the confiscation order lacked evidence to support the claim of Nepalese origin for the silver bricks, leading to the finding being unsustainable.

3. Regarding the seized silver coins with less than 40% silver content by weight but more than 40% by value, the petitioner relied on Government Orders 57 and 58 of 1968 which allowed the release of such coins. However, the Government contended that the orders were erroneously issued and did not cover coins with less than 40% silver content by weight. The High Court disagreed with the Government's interpretation, stating that the omission of "by value" in the orders did not exclude coins with less than 40% silver content by weight. As the seized coins fell within this category, the Court held they were protected by the Government Orders and could not be confiscated. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the orders for confiscation were quashed, directing the return of the seized silver bars and coins to the petitioner.

---