ASHOK KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the appellant has come in appeal challenging penalty of Rs. 2000/ - imposed on him Under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the appellant herein is a goldsmith by profession. A search of his residential premises was made on 10 -12 -1987 in his absence when his wife Smt. Usha Rani was present. The recovery of 4 gold biscuits - 3 of 10 tolas each and one of the remaining quantity totally weighing 359.800 gms. were recovered from the premises. The panchnama records that 3 of the gold biscuits carried marks 9999 which were 10 tolas each and one biscuit carried an additional mark "Swiss." On test the biscuits of 10 tolas each were found of purity 99.50 and 10 gm. biscuit of weight was found to be of 99.90 purity. The panchnama does not indicate that the gold biscuits were defaced. Smt. Usha Rani could not produce evidence of possession of these gold biscuits, therefore gold was considered to be liable to seizure and the biscuits were seized. On recording a statement from the appellant herein, he stated that the biscuits were received from one person Ramesh alias Ramesh Kumar. However, the said Ramesh Kumar denied any delivery of gold to the appellant. The Indian currency of Rs. 6.7 lakhs was also seized which has been released by the adjudicating authority. Gold biscuits have been confiscated treating them as smuggled and as also having been unclaimed by the appellant or his wife. Penalty of Rs. 20,000/ - has also been imposed on the appellant.

(3.) OPPOSING the contentions, learned JDR, Shri T. A. Arunachalam for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority, as already set out above. As regards the controversy whether 3 of the 4 gold biscuits were defaced or not, he submits that a finding has been recorded by the adjudicating authority, then it must be presumed that he has examined the gold and this finding cannot be allowed to be challenged even if no such allegation has been made in the show cause notice or no mention has been made in the panchnama. He submits that this finding of the adjudicating authority cannot be said to be outside the scope of the proceedings.