Gold jewellery confiscation turned on later-produced invoices, with remand ordered for fresh verification of supporting documents.

Gold jewellery confiscation and penalty were sent back for fresh adjudication because the bangles and rings were worn as jewellery and were not shown to have been carried in a concealed manner. Although no proper licit document was produced at the time of seizure, purchase invoices were later filed at the appellate stage. As those invoices had not been examined by the adjudicating authority, their genuineness required verification before any final adverse finding could be sustained. The appellant was therefore to be given an opportunity to produce supporting documents, and the adjudicating authority was directed to verify them afresh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation and penalty imposed on the gold bangles and rings warranted interference and fresh adjudication on the basis of the purchase invoices produced at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The goods were worn as jewellery and were not shown to have been carried in a concealed manner. The appellant had not produced any proper licit document at the time of seizure, but purchase invoices were subsequently placed before the appellate authority. As those documents were not before the adjudicating authority, their genuineness required verification before any final adverse conclusion could be sustained. In the interest of justice, the appellant was to be given an opportunity to produce the supporting documents and the adjudicating authority was to verify them afresh.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after verification of the documents produced by the appellant.

---