KARENDRA KUMAR AND CO Vs. S D SHAHAPURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short controversy that falls for determination in this petition is that whether 25 hairpins together weighing 329.300 gms. can be described as ornaments or as primary gold. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows : -

(2.) THE petitioner are a registered partnership firm carrying on business in gold and silver ornaments. On February 2nd, 1970, the petitioners claim to have purchased gold ornaments of the following description from various customers.

(3.) THE petitioners carried an appeal before the Controller of Customs, Respondent No. 3. The Appellate Authority held that the articles like Pherwas and bangles which were confiscated were gold ornaments and no order of confiscation should be passed in regard to these ornaments. The Appellate Authority on inspection held that 25 items of hair -pins were not gold ornaments but was only primary gold. The Appellate Authority held that the hair pins are twisted at their end and their ends are very rough to indicating that they cannot be used as hair -pins. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of Respondent No. 2, with regard to bangles and pherwas, but confirmed the order as regards the hair pins. The penalty imposed by the Respondent No. 2, was also confirmed. The petitioners carried a revision before the Government of India but it ended in dismissal by an order dated 21st January, 1974. In the meanwhile on June 8th, 1973, the department issued a show cause notice to the petitioners to explain why their licence for dealing in gold ornaments should not be cancelled, under the provisions Section 50 of the Gold (Control) Act, for breach of the provisions. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity and legality of the order confiscating the hair -pins and imposing penalty and also the action of issuing a show cause notice for cancellation of licence.