Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 817 - HC - CustomsInterpretation of statute - smuggling of Gold - Whether Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A, which was inserted in the year 2012, was meant to include the smuggling of gold in the category of ‘other material’ as mentioned in Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A or not? - HELD THAT:- Single Bench of MOHAMMED ASLAM SON OF ABDUL RASHID VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [2021 (2) TMI 124 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] held that gold is a valuable material, smuggling of which can be done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country and was thus considered to be a ‘terrorist act’. However, in MOHAMMED SHAFI P., JALAL A.M., RABINS KARIKKANAKUDIYIL HAMEED, RAMEES K.T., SARITH. P.S., SWAPNA PRABHA SURESH, SHARAFUDEEN K.T., MOHAMMED ALI VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KOCHI, UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF KERALA, [2021 (11) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT], Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that Section 15(1)(a) (iiia) of the UA(P)A is not attracted when gold is smuggled in the country. Evidence of conspiracy and smuggling of gold does not prima facie give credence to an allegation of threat to economic security or irreparable damage to economic security of the country and thus cannot be deemed to be a terrorist act. The Court observed that counterfeiting, that too of high quality currency notes or coins and any material so to do is the only specie included under Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A. From the discussion, which took place before the Standing Committee, it is evident that no deliberation took place for considering gold as a material under Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A. From the relevant record as produced on behalf of the N.I.A., it is evident that except accused appellant – Amzad Ali, all the accused had gone to earn their livelihood and due to COVID, they were not able to continue to work at Saudi Arabia and therefore, were waiting to return back to India. As per the prosecution case, they were approached by some persons and they were made carriers for carrying the gold and free tickets were provided to them for smuggling gold into India. There is no material to suggest that the accused appellants intended to threaten the economic security of India. No material was seized from Amzad Ali, his name did not appear in the statements of the co-accused during investigation by Custom Officers and for the first time appeared in statements recorded by N.I.A. Prima facie there is no material against Amzad Ali. The other accused persons, who as per the investigation, were labourers and lost their employment due to COVID, were asked to carry gold in lieu of the tickets. There is no material whatsoever to come to the conclusion that they intended to commit any terrorist act so as to damage the economic security of the country Appeal allowed.
|