RAM LAL BHOLA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a silversmith. He manufactures and sells silver ornaments. His shop is situated at Shohratgarh, a place 6 miles from the Nepalese border. According to the petitioner, Nepalese citizens come to his shop to purchase silver ornaments and they pay the petitioner in Nepalese silver coins. On 25th October, 1964 the Customs Authorities raided the petitioner's shop and searched it. They seized three silver bricks weighing 52.37 Kg. and some silver coins of Nepalese origin. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, required the petitioner to show cause why the seized goods may not be confiscated. The petitioner filed a detailed explanation. At the hearing he gave a statement, whereafter the Assistant Collector found that the silver bars as well as the Nepalese coins were of Nepalese origin. The petitioner had thus committed an offence of being in possession of smuggled goods. He directed that the seized silver coins and bricks be confiscated under sections 111 and 120 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner went up in appeal but the Central Board of Excise and Customs dismissed the same. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Central Government which also failed. Aggrieved, he had come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The authorities below have uniformly found that the silver bricks as well as the coins were admitted' by the petitioner to be of Nepalese origin. The petitioner challenges this finding in regard to the silver bricks on the ground that it is based on no evidence. We have perused the statement given by the petitioner. In that statement he stated that he melted old silver ornaments at his shop in order to make the silver bricks. There is no admission that the silver bricks were made out of the Nepalese coins or out of silver ornaments which had Nepalese origin. There is nothing to that effect in the written arguments furnished by him or in the statement made by him. The learned standing counsel has not been able to point out any material from which it could be inferred that the petitioner had admitted that the silver bricks had Nepalese origin. Thus the only finding on the basis of which the bricks were directed to be confiscated is without any evidence in support. This finding cannot hence be sustained.

(3.) In regard to the seized silver coins the position is that their silver content is admittedly less than 40% in weight though it appears that their silver content is more than 40% in value. The Government Orders 57 and 58 of 1968 permitted coins with less than 40% silver content to be released. The petitioner's plea that he was covered by these orders and so the silver coins could not be confiscated was repelled by the Government of India in the following words :-