Confiscation of currency requires proven nexus with smuggled goods, while repealed penal proceedings may continue if saved by law.

Indian currency may be confiscated under Customs law only where there is able nexus with the sale proceeds of smuggled goods; absent such evidence, confiscation fails and the currency must be returned. Repeal of the Gold (Control) Act does not extinguish proceedings for past violations where the saving principle under the General Clauses Act preserves actions already initiated while the Act was in force; those proceedings remain maintainable. Penalties under both enactments may be moderated on the facts, and the penalties here were reduced substantially.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Indian currency recovered from the appellant was liable to confiscation as sale proceeds of smuggled goods under the Customs law; (ii) whether proceedings and penalties under the repealed Gold (Control) Act could continue after repeal; and (iii) whether the penalties imposed were liable to be reduced.

Issue (i): whether the Indian currency recovered from the appellant was liable to confiscation as sale proceeds of smuggled goods under the Customs law.

Analysis: Currency can be confiscated only where there is material to connect it with the sale proceeds of smuggled goods and the statutory requirement of such nexus is satisfied. On the facts, no evidence established that the currency represented sale proceeds of smuggled goods or that the necessary knowledge or belief existed to support confiscation.

Conclusion: The Indian currency was not liable to confiscation and was directed to be returned to the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether proceedings and penalties under the repealed Gold (Control) Act could continue after repeal.

Analysis: Repeal of a penal enactment does not automatically extinguish pending proceedings where the saving principle under the General Clauses Act preserves actions already initiated for past violations. The repeal of the Gold (Control) Act therefore did not bar continuation of the proceedings arising from alleged violations committed while that Act was in force.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act were held to be maintainable despite repeal.

Issue (iii): whether the penalties imposed were liable to be reduced.

Analysis: Having regard to the circumstances, some leniency was considered appropriate in the quantum of penalty imposed under both enactments.

Conclusion: The penalties were reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 under each enactment.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation of the Indian currency did not survive, the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act did not defeat the proceedings, and the penalty was substantially reduced, but the appeals were otherwise not allowed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Currency is liable to confiscation under the Customs law only when a legally established nexus exists with the sale proceeds of smuggled goods, and repeal of a penal statute does not nullify pending proceedings saved by the General Clauses Act.

---