WP(C) 3152/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA This writ petition is directed against the Annexure-3 order dated 19.11. 2001 passed in appeal No. G-4/87 by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appe llate Tribunal, Kolkata. By the said order, the appeal preferred by the petition er against the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shil long has been dismissed. The petitioner, a licenced gold dealer was found in possession of a tota l quantity of 6789.710 gms. Of gold and gold ornaments of 22 carats valued at Rs. 13,62,442/- which were not accounted for in his statutory register. Accordin gly, the same were seized. Thereafter, he was issued a show cause notice dated 6 .8.86 for violation of the Provisions of the Gold Control Act,1968. By the noti ce, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the seized gold was not con fiscated Under Section 71 of the Ac and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 74. Considering the reply furnished by the petitioner and upon giving him a personal hearing, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong, vide hi s order dated 6.11.1986 held out of the total quantity of gold seized from the p etitioner, only the gold weighing 7674.670 gms. Was not properly accounted for a nd, therefore, was liable to be confiscated under Section 71 of the said Act. Ac cordingly, an order was passed for confiscation. However, an option was given to the petitioner to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Se ction 73. Further, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed under Section 74. In the appeal, the petitioner did not appear on the date of hearing but sent a communication dated 17.11.2011 to dispose of the appeal on merits. Accord ingly, the appellate authority in consideration of the aforesaid facts and circu mstances, dispose of the appeal by the impugned order. On perusal of the materials in record, what is found is that the redempt ion fine of Rs. 25,0000/- for confiscation of gold valued at more than Rs. 10 la khs and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- cannot be said to excessive. On merit also, the p etitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court so as to interfere with the imp ugned order. Ms. R. Bora, learned CGC has made submissions on the basis of the materi als on record and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.