Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, AJAY DIGPAUL
Hira Singh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, “the Customs Act”) questioning the value of goods for assessment.
2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are as under:
A. On the night of 20th/21st December, 2018, the officers from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short, “DRI”), Delhi Zonal Unit based on a specific intelligence inputs, as regards the foreign origin cigarettes being smuggled and stored at a godown, placed the godown area under surveillance.
B. During the early hours of 21st December, 2018, a light commercial vehicle, Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. UP- 21-BN-5207, was intercepted by the said unit while the cartons containing foreign origin cigarettes were being unloaded. Since in the godowns, so also in the vehicle, the said cigarette cartons were traced, a Punchnama dated 21st December, 2018 was drawn recording entire details and recovery of 150 cigarettes cartons from the aforesaid light commercial vehicle and 33 cartons from the godown in question.
C. The present appellant was present at the spot of the incident and was, accordingly, detained and his statement was recorded
The burden of proof in customs seizures lies with the appellant, who must demonstrate improper valuation or legality of confiscation; failure to substantiate claims results in dismissal of appeal.
Statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act require strict adherence to procedural safeguards for admissibility; failure to comply renders them non-evidential in adjudication.
Customs authorities must prove undervaluation with substantial evidence, including contemporaneous import prices, rather than relying solely on unattested initial export declarations.
The tribunal clarified the procedural requirements for admissibility of statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act, establishing that improper evidence leads to invalidation of confiscation....
The failure to follow statutory procedures for the admissibility of witness statements invalidates reliance on such statements, impacting penalties for mis-declaration.
Possession of smuggled goods under the Customs Act confirms liability for prosecution without proper documentation; the accused must prove otherwise.
Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be relied upon unless the statutory procedure under Section 138B is strictly followed, ensuring fairness in evidence acceptance.
The rejection of declared transaction values based on evidence of under-invoicing and unauthorized remittances was upheld, affirming the legal obligation for accurate declarations in customs.
The court ruled that statements made under coercion cannot be admitted into evidence unless the procedural compliance of examination and cross-examination is satisfied.
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
