Departmental confiscation for unexplained gold possession stands apart from criminal acquittal; personal penalty requires proof of business responsibility.

Denial of access to documents and cross-examination was not treated as fatal where no fresh application for the permitted relief was made before the Collector. Criminal acquittal did not displace departmental confiscation and penalty because adjudication proceeds on a different standard of proof and on the reasons recorded in the order. Unexplained possession of excess gold ornaments, unsupported by updated registers or credible vouchers, justified confiscation and redemption fine. Personal penalty on the first appellant was unsustainable because the evidence showed he had ceased to be in charge of the business, and responsibility at the relevant time was not proved; any amount paid on that penalty was refundable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for denial of opportunity to seek production of documents and cross-examination of witnesses; (ii) whether the criminal acquittal of the appellants required setting aside the confiscation and penalty; (iii) whether the confiscation of the excess gold ornaments and redemption fine were justified on the facts; and (iv) whether personal penalty could validly be imposed on the first appellant who had ceased to be in charge of the business.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for denial of opportunity to seek production of documents and cross-examination of witnesses

Analysis: The appellants did not make any fresh request before the Collector after being permitted to seek production of documents and cross-examination. The earlier request for the investigation report did not survive as an enforceable right, and the grievance could not be sustained in the absence of a specific application for the permitted relief.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the adjudication was not held invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal acquittal of the appellants required setting aside the confiscation and penalty

Analysis: The scope of criminal prosecution and departmental adjudication was different, as were the standards and extent of proof. The acquittal judgment did not consider the reasons recorded in the adjudication order for rejecting the explanation, and the departmental proceedings were not rendered void merely because the criminal court had acquitted the appellants.

Conclusion: The criminal acquittal did not warrant interference with the confiscation or the penalty.

Issue (iii): Whether the confiscation of the excess gold ornaments and redemption fine were justified on the facts

Analysis: The statutory registers were not brought up to date, the appellants present at the time of seizure could not explain possession of the excess ornaments, and the later explanation regarding purchases and vouchers was found unbelievable. On the evidence, the explanation for possession of the seized gold was not accepted, and the confiscation followed from the unexplained possession in violation of the gold control obligations.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the gold ornaments and the redemption fine were upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether personal penalty could validly be imposed on the first appellant who had ceased to be in charge of the business

Analysis: Liability under the provision required proof that the person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. The evidence, including the statements of the appellants, showed that the first appellant had retired from active conduct of the firm's business, and the department did not establish his responsibility for the offence.

Conclusion: The personal penalty imposed on the first appellant was set aside, and any amount paid was directed to be refunded.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of deleting the penalty imposed on the first appellant, while the confiscation, redemption fine, and the remaining penalties were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental confiscation and penalty proceeding is not displaced by a criminal acquittal, unexplained possession of gold ornaments justifies confiscation where the explanation is rejected on evidence, and personal liability of a partner requires proof that he was in charge of and responsible for the business at the relevant time.

---