RAMESH KHATNANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this writ petition are seizure memo dated 18-12-1993, confiscation order passed in relation thereto by the Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur dated 27/30-10-1995 and the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, "tribunal") dated 26-12-1997 whereby the said Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner upheld the aforementioned order of the Commissioner.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that the Customs officials of Udaipur and Jodhpur range jointly conducted search of the shop and residential premises of the petitioner and prepared a Panchnama/seizure Memo and seized eight foreign marked gold biscuits, 1067 US Dollars, 15 Singapore Dollars and Indian Currency worth Rs. 11]10]000/ -. Statement of the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 (for short, "act") was recorded on 19-12-1993. A show cause notice dated 3-6-1994 was issued to the petitioner as to why (a) eight gold biscuits under Section 111 (b), (b) foreign currency notes under Section 111 (d), (c) Indian Currency notes and (d) other material be not confiscated under Section 119 (1) of the Act and penalty should not be imposed on him in respect of each of the above three under Section 112 (b) of the Act. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 3-2-1995. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur upon consideration of the entire material on record and explanation putforth by the petitioner, passed the final adjudication order on 27/30-10-1995 thereby confiscating the aforesaid articles and imposing Rs. 20]000/- as penalty upon the petitioner and one Ashok Suri. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which vide its order dated 13-1-1998 while upholding the order in original passed by the Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) AS regards the Gold biscuits of foreign marking, it was submitted that the authorities below have arbitrarily disbelieved the explanation offered by the petitioner in a most perfunctory manner. Eight gold biscuits which were seized from his premises were of M/s. AShish Jewellers and the petitioner would have only earned Rs. 100/- per biscuit as profit for getting the work of Kundan done on them. These gold biscuits were delivered to the petitioner by Mr. AShok Suri of M/s. AShish Jewellers who had received such gold biscuits from K. N. Babu from Dubai against a valid baggage receipt which was produced. Entry to this effect was made in the stock register of M/s. AShish Jewellers which document was also produced.