ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. These three appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs, Preventive, Ahmedabad.
2. The appellants are absent and unrepresented. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.
3. the Collector’s order was concerned with confiscation of quantities of gold, silver and currency seized from the premises in which Bhupendra S. Shah, Bhargav S. Shah, Shantilal V. Shah, Vasantben S.Shah, Ansuyaben B.Shah and Mina B. Shah jointly reside. In the order the Commissioner has found that the gold currency and silver belonged to Bupendra Shah. We have in our order dealt with appeal filed by Bhupendra Ss. Shah, Vasant S. Shah, Ansuyaben B.Shah, Meenaben B. Shah. The other three appeals were not listed on that date and therefore considered separately.
4. The contention before the Collector with regard to the standard gold weighing 30 gms and primary gold weighing 96.1 gms was that they kept these in the house of Bhargava Shah, Bhupenda Shah’s brother. Umesh K. Soni, Thakar Harshadrai & Giridharlal Bros. filed appeals claiming the ownership respectively of primary gold being 76.17 gms and standard gold weighing 30 gms and 19 gms which they claimed they had given to Bhargav. Bhargav’s appeal rests on the footing that gold had been given to him in accordance with the provision of Gold Control Act.
5. The Collector has declined to accept this claim for two reasons. As to the standard gold, there is no evidence in substantiation of the claim made by Umesh Soni. He finds himself unable to accept the claim that gold was kept in the house by Bhargav. He says that the place of work was not the house, but Nanavati Market, Bhavnagar. There is no convincing argument advanced against these conclusions. Bhargav was not present when the house was searched on 15.11.86. He submitted an application on 18.10.86 after coming to know of the seizure (this date is obviously a mistake)
6. There is no explanation as to why his GS 13 register was not available in the house. It is difficult to believe that a certified goldsmith carried the GS 13 register wherever he want. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Bhupendra took advantage of the absence of Bhargav to attribute the possession of the gold to Bhargav. Similarly, there is no convincing explanation as to other two persons did not make their claim earlier. Further their claim to the gold is dependent upon Bhargav claims that it was in his possession. We are unable to accept this. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector.
7. Once this claim of Bhargav, Thakkar and soni with regard to possession and ownership are dismissed, the confiscation of the golds has to be upheld. We however do not find any convincing reason for not offering redemption. The fact that there has been a contravention of Section 8, it will be justified for confiscation and not for absolute confiscation. We do not think the offence was such a great to justify absolute confiscation.
8. We therefore permit the redemption of the confiscated goods by Bhupendra Shah on payment of fine of Rs.8000/- of the standard gold and Rs. 3000 for primary gold.
9. Appeals C/1060, 1064 & 1065/87 dismissed.