Confiscation of seized gold requires clear findings on records, ownership claims, and proper notice before adverse action.

Confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act required a proper factual appraisal of the G.S.13 register, supporting vouchers and the authenticity of the entries before adverse action could be sustained; the record did not show that these materials were clearly examined, so the confiscation order failed on that ground. Where seized ornaments were claimed to belong to third parties, the authority also had to give notice and a real opportunity to represent ownership claims; because that exercise was not properly undertaken and the sale vouchers were not adequately assessed, confiscation of the claimed third-party ornaments was unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on all facts and evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation could be sustained when the availability of the G.S.13 register and supporting vouchers at the time of visit, and the authenticity of the entries, were not properly examined; (ii) Whether ornaments claimed to belong to third parties could be confiscated without notice and opportunity of representation under the Gold (Control) Act.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation could be sustained when the availability of the G.S.13 register and supporting vouchers at the time of visit, and the authenticity of the entries, were not properly examined.

Analysis: The record showed a serious factual dispute as to whether the G.S.13 register was produced shortly after the seizure and whether the departmental officers fairly dealt with that claim. The adjudicating authority did not clearly accept or reject the appellant's version on this vital aspect, nor did it adequately examine whether the register entries enabled identification and verification of the concerned customers. The order also failed to address the evidentiary value of the vouchers produced.

Conclusion: The confiscation order could not stand on this incomplete factual appraisal.

Issue (ii): Whether ornaments claimed to belong to third parties could be confiscated without notice and opportunity of representation under the Gold (Control) Act.

Analysis: The seized goods included items claimed to belong to third parties, including ornaments said to belong to M/s. Sohan Lal & Sons. In such a situation, the authority was required to examine whether notice under the Act had been served and whether the persons concerned had been given an effective opportunity to explain their claim. That exercise was not satisfactorily undertaken, and the order did not record a proper finding on the acceptability of the sale vouchers or on the third-party ownership claim.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the claimed third-party ornaments without proper notice and inquiry was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on all facts and evidence in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation depends on disputed possession, ownership, and supporting records, the adjudicating authority must record clear findings on the material evidence and afford the affected persons a proper opportunity before ordering confiscation.

---