TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (2) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... police showed them the gold biscuits and in the absence of any proof of licit acquisition/possession/import of the same by any person there, the gold was seized in the reasonable belief of it having been smuggled. The passport of the appellant was also taken over by the DRI officers. 2. Shri Sriram Verma, who was present at that time, revealed that the house belonged to the appellant herein who resided at D-9/3, Model Town III, Delhi and the seized gold biscuits also belonged to him. The appellant's residential premises were searched but nothing incriminating or contraband was recovered therefrom. Shri Sriram Verma stated that he was the distant brother-in-law of the appellant and that he is looking after the construction work of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized gold and imposed penalties of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant and Shri Sriram Verma respectively under the Customs Act, 1962 and penalties of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25.000/- respectively on the appellant and Shri Sriram Verma under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Counsel draws our attention to the Panchnama and submits that the seizure under the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the provisions of Section 123 are not attracted to the facts of this case. He, therefore, submits that the burden of proof lies on the Department to establish the smuggled nature of the gold. In support of his contention, he cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (AIR 1962 SC 496) G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e challenge to the recovery, as recorded in the Panchnama. He submits that the appellant cannot be imposed any penalty as he was not in conscious possession of the gold which was admittedly recovered from a premises which was under construction and therefore, accessible to several persons and he relies upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Pyarelal Sood [1992 (43) ECR 478] in support of this proposition. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the penalties. 6. The learned DR Shri K.N. Gupta, submits that the order is based upon the factum of recovery, except that the statement of Shri Sriram Verma was retracted only after 12 days which is, therefore, a belated attempt by Shri Sriram Verma to escape involvement in the offence. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court construed the expression 'Seized' in the context of usage in Section 178A to mean 'take possession of contrary to the wishes of the owner of the property'. In the case of Ranjit Ram v. Collector of Customs [1983 (14) E.L.T. 2086], the Tribunal held that a seizure under the Customs Act cannot be effected by a person other than a Proper Officer as defined in the Act and once, therefore, the seizure has been effected by the Police as in that case, and not by the Proper officer. Section 123 becomes inapplicable since it was not a seizure under the Act in terms of the power specifically vested in the Proper officer. The same view has been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of K. Beeman v. Colle....