Foreign-origin gold coins remained liable to confiscation, but redemption was allowed on payment of fine.

Gold coins were held liable to confiscation as foreign-origin goods under the Customs Act, 1962 because the record, including the Government Mint opinion, showed that such coins were not known to be manufactured in India and the appellant failed to discharge the burden under Section 123 to prove licit origin. On those facts, confiscation was sustained. However, the age and surrounding circumstances of the coins justified granting redemption instead of absolute confiscation, so redemption on payment of fine was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the gold coins were liable to confiscation as goods of foreign origin under the Customs Act, 1962, and whether redemption on payment of fine should be granted.

Analysis: The coins comprised 14 pieces of antique vintage and one recent coin. The record, including the opinion of the Government Mint, indicated that the manufacture of such coins was not known in India. On these facts, the statutory burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 remained on the appellant to establish licit origin, and that burden was not discharged. At the same time, the age and circumstances of the coins, together with the facts of the case, justified giving an opportunity of redemption instead of leaving the confiscation absolute.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the coins as foreign-origin goods was upheld, but redemption was allowed on payment of fine, and the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The liability to confiscation was affirmed, while limited relief was granted by permitting redemption on payment of fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are found to be of foreign origin and the statutory burden under Section 123 is not discharged, confiscation is sustainable; however, redemption may still be allowed on the facts of the case by imposition of fine.

---