Back
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
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.
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.
The burden of proof in smuggling cases under Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts only upon reasonable belief of smuggled nature; inadequate evidence substantiates the legality of goods.
The tribunal's reliance on witness statements was found flawed due to procedural non-compliance, leading to the dismissal of appeals against penalties under the Customs Act.
Point of law: Section 112(a) of the Act is applicable to a person, who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any action, which act or omission would render such goods liable for confiscation ....
A confession under section 108 of the Customs Act must be proven voluntary and reliable; mere marking of documents does not equate to proof, and appellate courts should respect acquittals unless the ....
Quasi-judicial proceedings require strict adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, which was violated in this case, rendering the confiscation order....
The prosecution must provide credible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as mere confession under coercion lacks probative value.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
