ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. This appeal has been preferred by Shri Gopi Krishna against order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi. It is against the confiscation of primary gold and gold ornaments seized in this case from his business and residential premises confiscated by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. On 7.10.1977, 639.00 gms. of primary gold was recovered from the residential premises of the appellant and another quantity of 848.400 gms. of primary gold and gold ornaments were recovered from his business premises. He was charged for unauthorised possession of primary gold and dealing in gold without a licence under the Gold (Control) Act. The Deputy Collector confiscated the gold giving him option to redeem it on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000, The appeal against the Deputy Collr’s. order was rejected by the Collr. of Customs (Appeals). When the case was called for hearing before the Tribunal, the appellant had sent a letter stating that he is too poor to come to Delhi, engage a lawyer and argue the case and, therefore, the appeal may be decided on merits. The main points made in the appeal petition are that his submission on the date of seizure should not be relied upon because it was recorded under duress and that he had sent a letter to that effect immediately on 8.10.1977. The seizing officer had also seized the ornaments which were pawned with him as well as the ornaments belonging to his family. There were some new ornaments manufactured for the marriage of his son which was to be celebrated shortly and he also had daughters of marriageable age. The appeal petition also names the goldsmiths, Santu Sonar and Banwari Lal as the persons who had manufactured the new ornaments. He had therefore proved that the charges were not established and that the orders of the lower authorities should be set aside.
2. Arguing for the department, the learned SDR, Shri Shishir Kumar pointed out that there is an endorsement in the panchnama relating to the search of his residence that the gold was kept for sale and similarly in the panchnama there is an endorsement by the appellant that all the ornaments seized are newly manufactured. He further argued that the letter of 8.10.1977 sent by the appellant retracting from his statement was clearly an afterthought.
3. The points put forth in the appeal petition as well as the submissions made by the learned SDR have been duly considered. The version of the appellant that the gold belonged to his family or it formed the part of the ornaments pawned with him fails to carry conviction because of the fact that no such details were spelt out by him from the date of seizure till about the time of replying show cause notice. The accounts of the certified goldsmiths do not have much evidentiary value because of the delay in referring to their existence and belated production of their accounts. The witnesses produced during the adjudication proceedings in defence of the appellant were also unable to give the details of the ornaments, and besides, in the panchnama it is seen that the appellant himself had made an endorsement regarding the commercial nature of the goods seized from his shop and residence and this panchnama still stands and the retraction from his statement subsequently by the appellant by his letter dated 8.10.1977 does not change this situation. It also goes against the appellant that he does not give any details even in his letter of 8.10.1977 regarding the manner of acquisition of the gold. Therefore, the conclusion of the lower authorities that the subsequent pleas put forth were only in the nature of afterthought, is justified, and the charges have correctly been held established. However, having regard to the pleas put forth in the appeal petition and the subsequent letter to the Tribunal relating to his economic status, the personal penalty on the appellant is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. The order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is modified only to this extent. It is otherwise upheld.