(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment and order of our brother Justice Jeevan Reddy in Writ Petition No. 3213 of 1978 which was filed by the appellant herein to quash the orders dated 16-5-1970 of the Government of India confirming the order of the Gold Control Administrator, Ministry of Finance, which in turn confirmed the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad.
(2.) On 30-4-1966 the Officers of the Headquarters Preventive Intelligence Unit (Gold Cell) attached to the Hyderabad Central Excise Collectorate Office visited the appellants premises and enquired whether he was in possession of any primary gold. The appellant replied in the negative. His house was searched and 13 slabs of gold were recovered from an iron safe. Notice was issued to show cause why the gold seized from him should not be confiscated. The appellant submitted an explanation stating that the gold was given to him by his father-in-law long prior to 1963 and that he wanted to invest the same in gold bonds and for that purpose he obtained a gold bond form Sri Asaram Malani on or about 27-4-1966 and filled it up, but on account of a marriage and a feast in his house he could not submit the gold and the form from into the Bank. After an enquiry under the Customs Act, the Collector disbelieved the appellants case that he wanted to invest the gold in gold bonds. He observed that the form produced by the appellant does not appear to contain the endorsement of the appropriate Bank and the form could not be relied upon to prove the appellants alleged intention. Ultimately he found the appellant guilty of failing to declare the primary gold in his possession and accordingly directed the confiscation and levied a penalty under Rule 126-L(16). The appeal to the Gold Control Administrator was dismissed. The further revision to the Government of India was also dismissed on 16-5-1970. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 3213 of 197 8/07/1978. Justice Jeevan Reddy also observed that there was no reason to depart from the concurrent findings recorded by all the three authorities below.
(3.) We have heard the arguments of Sri C. P. Sarathy, learned Counsel for the appellant and we are not persuaded to hold that the decision of Justice Jeevan Reddy is in any way incorrect.