Limitation in de novo adjudication and confiscation of concealed primary gold upheld, while personal penalties were reduced.

A de novo adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act was held not to become invalid merely because the fresh notice was issued after six months from the remand order, as limitation was linked to the communication and effect of the remand rather than treated as voiding the proceedings. On confiscation, concealed possession of primary gold, corroborated statements, travel records, and surrounding circumstances were treated as sufficient to establish illicit movement and possession, so absolute confiscation was sustained and redemption denied. The personal penalties, however, were considered excessive in light of the appellants' relative role and were reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication in de novo proceedings was vitiated because the notice was issued beyond six months from the remand order under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968; (ii) Whether the order of absolute confiscation and the penalties imposed on the appellants required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication in de novo proceedings was vitiated because the notice was issued beyond six months from the remand order under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The limitation argument was rejected by applying the principle that the relevant time computation for a fresh adjudication must be linked with the communication and effect of the remand order, and not treated as rendering the entire proceedings void merely because the notice was issued after the period counted from the date of the remand order. Reliance was placed on the settled distinction between seizure-related time limits and the validity of adjudicatory notice, drawn from analogous customs jurisprudence.

Conclusion: The de novo adjudication was not void and the limitation objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of absolute confiscation and the penalties imposed on the appellants required interference.

Analysis: The recovery of primary gold from concealed custody, the corroborated statements of the participants, the supporting travel material, and the surrounding circumstances established the illicit movement and possession of the gold. The explanation that the statements were involuntary or that the Mint certificate undermined the case was rejected. In view of the high purity and the foreign-origin indication, redemption in lieu of confiscation was declined. However, considering the relative role of the appellants and the fact of confiscation, the personal penalties were found excessive and were reduced.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld, redemption was denied, and the penalties were reduced as directed.

Final Conclusion: The liability findings on confiscation and contravention were sustained, but the personal penalties were moderated, so the order stood affirmed except for the reduction in penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A de novo adjudication is not invalid merely because the fresh notice is issued beyond the period counted from the remand order when the applicable limitation is construed with reference to the communication and effect of the remand, and confiscation may be sustained on corroborated evidence of concealed possession and illicit transport of primary gold.

---