the appellants appeared in response to this numberice and were granted a personal hearing their companynsel being heard in support of their plea that the gold was number smuggled and so number liable to be companyfiscated.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 6 1958 of the punjab high court circuit bench at delhi in civil writ number 417 d of 1958.
thereafter the appellants filed a writ petition before the high companyrt of punjab with the result already stated.
136 1 of the companystitution and is directed against the judgment and order of the punjab high companyrt by which a writ petition filed before it by the appellants under art.
these officers ascertained from the manager of the refinery that this gold belonged to the appellant firm who were later contacted and who admitted their ownership of the gold.
on september 14 1954 the appellant firm had despatched to the bombay bullion refinery for the purpose of melting about 500 tolas of gold.
their defence was however rejected and the collector of customs who adjudicated in this matter under s. 182 of the sea customs act passed an order on august 25 1955 directing the confiscation.
from this order appeals and revisions were preferred which were unsuccessful.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 591 of 1960.
the point raised for our companysideration relates to the legality of an order of confiscation by the customs authorities of certain gold belonging to the appellants on the ground of its being smuggled.
226 of the companystitution was summarily dismissed.
certain customs officers received information that some quantity of gold which was believed to be smuggled was being sent to the refinery for melting and in pursuance of this information they went to the refinery and found the gold bullion which is the subject of these proceedings placed in a crucible for the purpose of being melted.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ayyangar j. this appeal companyes before us by virtue of leave granted by this companyrt under art.
v. viswanatha sastri j. b. dadachanji o. mathur and ravinder narain for the appellants.
the gold was thereupon seized and investigation started for ascertaining whether the gold was or was number smuggled gold after which the assistant companylector of customs issued a numberice to the appellants on january 31 1955 to show cause why the gold should number be companyfiscated under s. 167 8 of the sea customs act.
k. chatterjee and t. m. sen for the respondents.
numberember 13.
the appellants are the partners of a joint hindu family firm carrying on business in bombay in inter alia gold and jewellery.
