K. VINOD CHANDRAN, HARISH KUMAR
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Patna – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Sethiya – Respondent
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—Two kilograms of gold, with Swiss markings, indubitably indicating its source from abroad, was seized on prior information received of the transport, based on which, proceedings were taken under the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity the ‘Act’), culminating in the Order-in-Original (Annexure-B), confiscating and imposing penalties under the Act. The First Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Original Authority. Under Section 129-A(2) of the Act, the Committee of Commissioners directed the Proper Officer to file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal; in which the Tribunal affirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority. The impugned appeal is filed under Section 130 of the Act, raising the following question of law: —
Whether the Appellate Authority on the basis of facts and evidences and circumstances of the case, has completely erred in its findings and came to conclusion overlooking a number of material facts as well as the judgments cited?
2. Dr. K.N.Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, argued that the contraband was seized from the body of a person travelling in a train from Howrah to Mumbai; the Howrah-Mumbai Mai
Chandna Impex (P). Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
K.I. Pavunny vs. Asstt. Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate Cochin
Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs. Union of India
A. Tajudeen vs. Union of India
Hearsay admission under S.108 requires corroboration to prove smuggled gold; absent foreign markings or evidence, confiscation unsustainable.
Possession of unaccounted foreign gold bars leads to conviction under Customs and Gold Control Acts, where failure to provide lawful explanation substantiates charges of smuggling.
Reasonable belief of smuggling must exist at seizure time under Section 110 for Section 123 presumption; town seizure without foreign markings, corroboration, or verified smuggling proof fails, espec....
The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act lies with the accused to prove lawful possession of seized goods, which was not met in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.