TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch warrant issued by the Assistant Collector (Prev.), Customs, Jaipur. During the course of search, it was ascertained that the family had two Bank Lockers. However, the two lockers owned by the family members could not be searched on 28-10-1983 as the search of residential premises could only be completed late at night. Accordingly on 29-10-1983 the locker No. 7 of State Bank of India, Kanwar Nagar Branch in the name of Smt. Radhabai wife of Shri Tirath Dass and their daughter Kumari Meena Taurani, was searched in the presence independent witnesses which resulted in the recovery of foreign marked gold coins and bars embeded in ornaments as described below :- S.No. Description of goods Purity Quantity 1. An Amulet embede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o persons, namely Smt. Radhabai wife of Shri Tirath Dass and Kumari Meena, daughter of Shri Tirath Dass. 3. Various pleas have been made by the learned Advocate for the appellant and their replies wherever possible have been given by the ' learned SDR. Those pleas are discussed below and findings given thereon seriatim :- (1) First plea made by the learned Advocate is that the search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector (Prev.) Customs, Jaipur was only for residential premises of Shri Tirath Dass at 90, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur. The goods have been recovered from the locker worn by the wife and daughter of Shri Tirath Dass and there was no search warrant for search of the said locker. Accordingly, the search itself was illegal a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l as the Gold (Control) Act, in accordance with the aforesaid settled position, the appeal under the Gold (Control) Act should have been filed before the Collector (Appeals) and this Tribunal would be competent to hear appeal relating to the Customs Act alone. Learned Advocate, however, has submitted that in the instant case by preamble to the impugned order the adjudicating authority had directed the aggrieved person to file an appeal to the Tribunal and accordingly the appeal has been filed to the Tribunal both under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act. He has also submitted that the Tribunal is not debarred from hearing an appeal under the Gold (Control) Act against an order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Centra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sposal of matters. (3) On the merits of the case the plea of the appellant's learned Advocate is that the goods under dispute and confiscated by the original adjudicating authority are clearly ornaments. Baggage Rules permit importation of jewellery up to Rs. 3000/- for a female passenger and up to Rs. 1500/- for a male passenger. Both Smt. Radhabai and Kumari Meena had been residents of Dubai since 1968. The goods under seizure are used as ornaments and jewelleries in Dubai as is clearly borne out by the certificate of Counsel General of India in Dubai. The fact that the confiscated goods are ornaments is evident from the panchnama and the order-in-original which describe the goods as Amulet, necklace, bracelet, ear rings and locket. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Gold (Control) Act, the learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that these are clearly ornaments. In fact, there is no finding of the adjudicating authority that the goods under confiscation are not ornaments. Accordingly, these are not confiscable at all under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act because the quantity of the ornaments under confiscation is far less than that an individual or a family can hold in terms of Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act without declaration thereof. I have carefully considered this plea of the learned Advocate vis-a-vis the definition of ornament given under the Gold (Control) Act. From explanation to clause (b) of Section 2 of the Gold (Control) Act, it is observed that for the purposes of the....