Judgment :- K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J. On an application taken out by the Petitioner under Section 130(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, the case was referred to this Court in Reference Petition No. 11 of 1999, raising several questions of law and this Court, by an Order dated 14-6-2000 directed the Tribunal to refer the following questions only :- 1.Whether the Order of the Tribunal holding that the word Suisse does not refer to gold biscuits under the brand name "Credit Suisse is correct in law, in the light of the Petitioner's claim that it had shown that the gold that was seized was minted in Switzerland and the minting of gold therein was by "Credit Suisse"? 2.Whether the Tribunal has erred in directing confiscation of silver ingots on the sole ground that there is difference in weight when the difference is relatively small being about 3 Kgs. while the total quantity of the silver seized is 234.904 Kgs? 2.Brief facts are as follows :- On 19-3-1993, acting on information the Officers attached to Intelligence Unit, Custom House, Madras searched the residential premises of one Shri A. Kabeer at No. 22, Vengupillal Street, Egmore, Madras-8 and recovered 42 Nos. gold bars of 10 Tolas each with foreign marketing in a bundle and the petitioner was not in possession of any valid documents to prove the licit origin. The Customs Officers also recovered 6 Nos. Silver ingots with the following markings in ink. 1.38.425 2.39.939 3.39.258 4.40.421 5.38.586 6.38.275 And the said silver ingots were found to be tampered with on top and fresh filling marks were found on them. The Petitioner produced three baggage receipts issued at Madras Airport in respect of the silver bars as if, they all belonged to one K. Mohan, G.T. Kumaraswamy and S.T. Mathialagan . When questioned, the petitioner submitted that 42 Nos. gold bars was imported by Shri Shamsudeen on 6-2-1993 and he had misplaced the baggage receipts and that he would produce the same subsequently. The Indian currency of Rs. 1, 75, 000/- was seized and the Petitioner gave an explanation that out of the said amount Rs. 1, 25, 000/- the sale proceeds of old jewellery of his mother and his wife and Rs. 25, 000/- being the bid amount received from M/s. Amaravathi Chit Funds and another Rs. The Indian currency of Rs. 1, 75, 000/- was seized and the Petitioner gave an explanation that out of the said amount Rs. 1, 25, 000/- the sale proceeds of old jewellery of his mother and his wife and Rs. 25, 000/- being the bid amount received from M/s. Amaravathi Chit Funds and another Rs. 25, 000/- being the profit in his business that he kept these money in the cupboard for the purchase of foreign goods from the passenger. Mahzar was preferred for the seizure of Gold and silver on 19-3-1993 and the silver bars were further checked by the Respondent to find out as to whether it contains any gold mix. Based upon the materials available the respondent sent a show cause notice to the Petitioner on 14-9-1993 to which a reply was given by him on 26-9-1993 and there was exchange of notice between the Petitioner and the Respondent. After having heard the Petitioner, an Order came to be passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras on 17-2-1994 confiscating the gold bars and 6 Nos. of Silver ingots, total value of Rs. 33, 94, 174/-. 3.As against the abovesaid Order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Madras in Appeal No. C/136/94/MAS, which by its order dated 22-4-1996 confirmed the Orders of the Collector of Customs, Madras, wherein it was held that baggage receipts produced do not tally with the gold seized. The mere statement of the petitioner that one Shamsudeen had imported the gold bars does not relieve him of the burden cast upon him to prove that these gold bars are not smuggled. With regard to the silver ingots seized, CEGAT held the weight of the silver in total is more than what is covered by the three baggage receipts. Having come to the said conclusion, the CEGAT confirmed the order passed by the Customs Officer, Madras, including the imposition of fine of Rs. 1, 00, 000/-. The petitioner questioned the said Order of CEGAT and filed an Application for reference under Section 130(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 before this Court and the same was ordered by this Court. Now, let us consider how far the case of the petitioner is true. 4.The fact that the gold bars 42 in number, weighing 4.893 Kgs. and 6 Nos. of silver ingots weighing 234.904 kgs. Now, let us consider how far the case of the petitioner is true. 4.The fact that the gold bars 42 in number, weighing 4.893 Kgs. and 6 Nos. of silver ingots weighing 234.904 kgs. were seized from the house of the Petitioner is not in dispute. The Petitioner was not able to produce any valid document, to prove the licit origin and legal acquisition of the gold bars and silver ingots and also has not produced any permit issued by the Reserve Bank of India for the importation of the goods seized from him. Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, representing the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner in his statement itself has stated that one Shamsudeen imported the gold bars on 6-2-1993 through Madras Air Port on payment of duty under baggage receipt No. 14920 dated 6-2-1993 and the said receipt was also produced by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also produced the baggage receipts, three in number for the valid import of silver ingots. Possession of Indian currency to any value is not an offence, unless it is not explained when called upon by the Income Tax Authorities. As such, gold and silver seized from the petitioner are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Reference was also made to the statement obtained from Shamsudeen, who in his statement had stated that he is residing at Jaloukuku, Singapore and he owns a Singapore Passport. He got property at Opillon, Ramnad District. On 6-2-1993, he came to India and brought 42 Nos. gold bars bearing markings Credit Suisse with a view to sell in India on the hope that the price of gold would be more in India. He had paid necessary duty to the Customs Department. He knows the petitioner, Kabeer for more than 11/2 years. On enquiry, he came to know that the gold price in India is low and it would not fetch much and that therefore, he entrusted the gold bars to the petitioner herein along with the custom duty paid receipt. He had paid necessary duty to the Customs Department. He knows the petitioner, Kabeer for more than 11/2 years. On enquiry, he came to know that the gold price in India is low and it would not fetch much and that therefore, he entrusted the gold bars to the petitioner herein along with the custom duty paid receipt. 5.Learned Advocate for the petitioner, by pointing out the statement obtained from Shamsudeen, through whom, the gold bars have been brought to India and also the baggage receipt, which is said to be relatable to the gold seized, has submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not proper. 6.Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that at the relevant time, when the gold bars were seized from the petitioner, Government of India had liberalised the policy for import of gold and the import of gold to be declared and duty has to be paid. It is further submitted that the petitioner has produced necessary baggage receipt dated 6-2-1993, for having brought gold to India after payment of duty and therefore, the possession of gold by the petitioner is of duty paid goods and the orders passed by the authorities are not proper. He has further submitted that the gold bar seized bear the markings Credit Suisse and the baggage receipts produced by the petitioner bear the mark suisse only, but both are manufactured by one and the same company. In support of his contention, he has pointed out from the book Gold Refiners and Bars Worldwide authored by Nigel Desebrock at Page No. 203 that one P.A. MPSA of Switzerland was manufacturing gold with the marking Suisse. In 1967 when Valcambi S.A. became a subsidiary of Credit Suisse, a comprehensive range of 6 cast and is minted bars were launched, and they have launched the gold bars under the marking Credit Suisee. 7.The gold bars seized from the Petitioner carry the marking Credit Suisse and these gold bars were manufactured by Valcambi S.A. and they are validly imported by Shamsudeen and necessary customs duty was also paid by him and therefore, the show cause notice dated 14-9-1993 is not valid as it was issued based upon the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 and also Section 13 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1972, which were not in force at the time of seizure of goods. It is further pointed out that import of gold and silver are governed by Import Trade Control Order 29-2-1992. Chapter IVA does not include gold and silver as either specified goods or Notified goods. As such, gold can freely be imported on condition that they have got to be declared and duty paid. As Shamsudeen paid Customs Duty and also the Petitioner produced the duty paid receipt for the import of gold would show that the entire proceedings against the Petitioner are vitiated.8.It is the contention of the Petitioner that both Suisse and Credit Suisse marked gold bars were manufactured by Valcambi S.A., a leading International manufacturer of gold bars. It is further pointed out from the book referred to above, that in the year 1967, Valcambi S.A. became a Subsidiary of "Credit Suisse". The official stamps of Valcambi S.A. and Credit Suisse have remained unchanged since their introduction in 1967, the certification mark of Valcambi S.A. since 1968. 9.Learned Senior Advocate also pointed out various figures at page No. 211, which carries emblem or logo of their Credit Suisse. The learned Senior Advocate is trying to make out a case that gold bars/biscuits with the marks Suisse and Credit Suisse are manufactured by one and the same Company and the Officer, who has raised the baggage receipt, has not chosen to write the full description of the marks in the gold bars imported by Shamsudeen and simply written as Suisse, which has resulted in seizure. The baggage receipt dated 6-2-1993 produced by the Petitioner tallies with the claim made by the petitioner that 42 numbers of gold bar was imported by Shamsudeen after having paid necessary duty and therefore, according to Counsel, the said gold bars were not smuggled into India as contended by the Respondent. With regard to Silver bars seized, it is contended that the difference in weight as noted in the baggage receipts and the physical weight is only negligeable and the receipts produced have got to be accepted, as they were licitly imported. With regard to Silver bars seized, it is contended that the difference in weight as noted in the baggage receipts and the physical weight is only negligeable and the receipts produced have got to be accepted, as they were licitly imported. 10.On behalf of the Respondent, it is contended that the petitioner has not chosen to produce the baggage receipt on the date on which, the gold bars were seized and it was produced only after two days and that therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was able to procure the baggage receipts to make it appear as if the gold seized were imported and duty paid. It is further pointed out that duty was paid for the gold bars, carrying the marking Suisse, but whereas the gold bars seized from the Petitioner are marked Credit Suisse and therefore, the baggage receipts produced is not relatable to the gold seized from the Petitioner. With regard to the silver seized, the baggage receipt produced by the Petitioner do not tally with the silver bars seized, particularly, the weight does not tally and that therefore, it is submitted that the silver seized is a smuggled one.11.We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the petitioner and the respondent. The Petitioner is trying to make out a case that, what has been seized is only a Credit Suisse gold bars, but by mistake, the entire wordings found in the gold bars were not written by the concerned officials in the receipt under which duty has been paid. It is stated that the passengers cannot compel the concerned authorities to write all the contents round in the gold bar in the receipt. Only in the said circumstances, the receipt under which customs duty paid was not properly prepared, for that matter, it cannot be said that gold imported by Shamsudeen and seized from the Petitioner were illicit in nature. Though the said argument of the Petitioner appears to be attractive, it is not convincing for the reason that the person who imports gold bars totalling 42 in number and worth of several lakhs, with an intention to sell for higher price in India, has not demanded the concerned authorities to prepare the custom duty paid receipts according to the contents of the gold bars is not acceptable. A company, may manufacture gold under different names, but the question is whether the receipt obtained is relatable to the gold in hand - the answer will be no. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that at the time of search, the Petitioner was found to be in possession of number of receipts issued by Customs Department in respect of imported gold bars. It is evident that the Petitioner was using such receipts in respect of gold not concerned in the receipt, in order to maximize his profit for the gold smuggled into the country without paying the duty. Hence, it cannot be presumed that what has been noted in the receipt under which duty has been paid and what has been seized from the Petitioner are one and the same.12.It is the duty of the person, who is importing the duty payable goods to see to it that the correct description of the goods is entered into the receipt for the payment of custom duty and the same is very much wanting in this case and in the absence of the same, we find it difficult to accept the case of the Petitioner that the gold, that has been imported by Shamsudeen and the gold seized from the Petitioner were one and the same. Hence, we reject the contention of the Petitioner. 13.With regard to the Silver bars seized, it has been well established that the total weights noted in the three baggage receipts do not tally with the ingots and on that score alone, the contention of the Petitioner that the silver bars were duly imported and duty paid cannot be accepted. The Petitioner has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him and the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that the silver bars were duly imported and duty paid cannot be accepted. 14.From the abovesaid discussions, we hold that the petitioner is disentitled to sustain his claim and the petitioner has not given a proper account of his possession of the gold bars and silver and the receipt produced do not relate to the goods seized and the petitioner has failed to prove the licit import of gold and silver and all these aspects were taken note of by the authorities concerned and hence, we answer both the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the Petitioner.