SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 618

HITESH KUMAR SARMA
Arjun Agrawal @ Arjun Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by the Customs Department – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D Saikia, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K K Dutta, Ms. P Baruah
For the Respondent: Mr. SC Keyal, Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT :

This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashment of Customs case No. 05/CL/IMP/CUS/CPF/NML/2020-2021 dated 15.03.2021 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat.

2. Heard Mr. D Saikia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, respondent/Customs Department.

3. The fact of the case is that on 14.03.2021, at about 23:30 hours (11:30 pm), a flying squad from Ghiladhari Police Station recovered 8 (eight) silvery marmosets, 2 (two) golden headed lion tamarins and 2 (two) lutino blue and gold macaws from a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/EA-4707 travelling from Merapani to Golaghat. The three accused persons/petitioners herein, upon interrogation, stated that the exotic animals and birds so recovered were collected from Imphal, Manipur and were being taken to Chennai. On 15.03.2021, the Officer-In-Charge, Ghiladhari Police Station, Golaghat handed over the detected items, i.e., the recovered animals and birds and the vehicle along with the accused persons/petitioners to the Range Forest Officer, Jamuguri Range, Golaghat who in turn informed that t

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              Judicial Analysis

              None.

              The provided case law does not contain any language indicating that it has been overruled, reversed, criticized, or otherwise treated as bad law. The case law appears to be a standalone statement without references to subsequent judicial treatment.

              Followed / Unspecified Treatment:

              The case law states a principle regarding violations related to export value and over-invoicing, but there is no indication that this ruling has been questioned, distinguished, or overruled in later decisions. It appears to be an authoritative statement on the issue without subsequent judicial treatment noted.

              Explanation: The absence of treatment indicators such as "overruled," "criticized," or "distinguished" suggests it remains a valid legal reference.

              Uncertain Cases:

              None identified.

              The case law provided does not contain ambiguous language or references to treatment patterns, so all treatment is presumed to be neutral or unaltered.

              **Source :** Om Prakas Bhatia VS Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi - Supreme Court Sheikh Mohd. Omer VS Collector Of Customs, Calcutta - Supreme Court

              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
              whatsapp-icon Back to top