Confiscation of primary gold upheld where possession, purity evidence, and unlawful transport supported the result despite delay objections.

Primary gold recovered from the appellant's possession was held liable to confiscation because his later explanation, including reliance on a will and a delayed retraction, was disbelieved and the certified goldsmith's opinion on purity was accepted. The challenge based on delay in issuing the show cause notice failed, as any six-month limit was held to govern detention and seizure rather than confiscation proceedings, and a Mint assay was found unnecessary at that stage. The transport of the gold was treated as contrary to law, so confiscation was upheld, while the penalty was reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absolute confiscation of primary gold was sustainable, whether the alleged delay in issuance of the show cause notice vitiated the proceedings, whether the appellant could displace the finding of purity based on the certified goldsmith's opinion, and whether the penalty required interference.

Analysis: The gold was admittedly recovered from the appellant's possession and his explanation changed only much later. The belated claim based on a will and the late retraction of his statement were disbelieved. The certified goldsmith's opinion on purity was accepted, and the appellant had never earlier challenged it. The Court held that even if the notice had been beyond the six-month period, that would not invalidate confiscation proceedings, the statutory bar being confined to detention and seizure. The claim for assaying by Mint authorities was rejected as unnecessary at that stage. On the facts, the transport of the gold was held to be in contravention of law.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the primary gold was upheld. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 20,000, and the appeal was otherwise rejected.

---