Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, AJAY DIGPAUL
Hira Singh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sequence of events leading to seizure of goods. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contentions regarding valuation and ownership. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's assessment of show cause notice. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. binding nature of statements recorded under section 108. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final dismissal of appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
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 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 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.
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.
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
