1988 (2) TMI 379 - AT - Customs

Tribunal annuls gold confiscation order due to procedural irregularities, directs fresh inquiry within three months

The Tribunal dismissed two Miscellaneous Petitions for summoning records and fixing an early hearing date, as the appeal could be decided based on ... Gold - Confiscation and penalty Issues:1. Dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 454/87 for summoning records.2. Dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 470/87 for fixing an early hearing date.3. Appeal against order confiscating gold and ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.Analysis:1. The Tribunal dismissed Miscellaneous Petition No. 454/87 seeking records from the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut as the appeal could be decided based on existing records without further summoning. The petition was thus rejected.2. The Tribunal also rejected Miscellaneous Petition No. 470/87 requesting an early hearing date since the appeal was being disposed of on the same day due to its concise nature, rendering the petition moot.3. The appeal challenged the Collector's order confiscating 640.480 grams of gold and ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appellant, claiming to be a legatee under a registered Will, argued that he had applied for a license in compliance with Section 103 of the Act after his uncle's death. The authorities authenticated his records and accepted his returns, indicating permission to operate as a dealer. The appellant contended that confiscation without notice was unjust and violated natural justice.4. The Department argued that the appellant lacked a valid license to trade in gold and ornaments, disputing his legatee status under the Will. The Tribunal noted the absence of primary gold in possession and found the charge under Section 8 of the Act baseless, as the seized items were trade ornaments, not primary gold.5. The Tribunal scrutinized the appellant's application under Section 103, emphasizing that the Department's delay in rejecting the application violated procedural fairness. The Tribunal held that until the rejection of the application, the appellant had not contravened the Act. The impugned order was set aside, directing a fresh inquiry with proper hearing and a decision within three months, during which the appellant could not operate as a licensed dealer. The confiscation order and penalties were annulled, allowing the appeal partially.