TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en together and disposed of by a common order. 2. On 25-7-1983, the Inspector of Special Customs Preventive Unit, Calicut and party checked Bus No. MFF 523 of the Karnataka State Transport Corporation plying between Bangalore and Ernakulam at the bus stand at Calicut. The appellant, an occupant of the bus was examined by the authorities and a search of the appellant resulted in the recovery of two gold slabs kept in the pant pocket. Since the appellant is neither a certified goldsmith nor a licensed gold dealer and since there was no valid permit or document for the possession of the said primary gold bar by the appellant, the gold was seized by the authorities under Mahazar attested by witnesses as per law. The gold was assayed by a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was kept in a state of prolonged custody from the date of seizure, namely 25-7-1983 to 27-7-1983. If the statement of the appellant is eschewed out of consideration, the learned counsel urged that there is no other evidence on record to prove that the gold under seizure is of foreign origin. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the case of the Department rests on the inculpatory statement of the appellant dated 27-7-1983 to prove the charge evelled against the appellant under the Customs Act. The learned D.R. urged that merely because there was a time interval of two days, that would not invalidate the statement under law. 5.  I have considered the submissions of the parties herein. As rightly contended by the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant after a lapse of two days and more particularly, when he was under the custody or control of the authorities does not inspire confidence in my mind about the voluntary nature of the same. Therefore, I am not inclined to attach any importance to the inculpatory statement recorded from the appellant so far as the confessional part of the same is concerned. Since there is no further tangible evidence to bring home the charge against the appellant under the Customs Act, the impugned order under the Customs Act appealed against is set aside and the appeal allowed. 6. Now, let me take the appeal under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The seizure of primary gold from the possession of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be established is that the gold under seizure is the resultant of melting those very ornaments, alleged to have been entrusted by the appellant's relatives to the appellant. Excepting the ipse dixit of the appellant, the appellant has not adduced any satisfactory acceptable proof to show that the gold under seizure is the resultant of melting the ornaments enstrusted to him by his relatives. Even in the impugned order, the Collector has adverted to the evidence on record and found that the gold under seizure is not relatable to the ornaments alleged to have been entrusted by the relatives with the appellant. One other important factor, I should like to take note of in this case is the fact that the gold under seizure was of 24 carat purit....