TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the original adjudication proceedings passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta in Order No. 54 dated 18-3-1980, the following directions were issued to the adjudicating authority, in adjudicating the case de novo :- (a) Reasonable opportunity should be extended to the Royal House of Bhutan to produce evidence at their disposal establishing the claim that these belonged to them; (b) Reasonable opportunity should also be given to the appellants to contest the finding that the precious stones and diamonds in question are of foreign origin by cross-examining the Government valuer who examined the goods; (c) The appellant Shri Jayantilal Mehta should arrange to have the claim of the Royal House of Bhutan established without any delay; (d) The Royal House of Bhutan and the other appellants should be heard, and if necessary, the goods re-examined, before the orders passed; and (e) The question of penalty on the appellants also should be readjudicated. But the Royal House of Bhutan did not take part in the proceedings and accordingly the case was decided after hearing the above-captioned appellants. 3. The brief facts of the case are that an information was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Indian currency was also seized in the reasonable belief that the same was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods and was liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The magazine was also seized being considered useful for or relevant to the proceedings under this Act. A search list was drawn up incorporating the goods seized in presence of witnesses and Shri Patel and a copy thereof was handed over to Shri Patel under receipt. Shri Jitendra Mohan Auddy, an authorised valuer, who was present during the search examined the diamonds and gave his opinion in the matter. 5. On 23-2-1975 another information was received at the Custom House to the effect that the said M/s. Thakorlal Hiralal Co. had kept secreted in lockers including locker No. 2100 in the India Safe Deposit Vault Co. Ltd., gold, diamonds, precious stones and currency in different fictitious names and addresses. Pursuant to the information, enquiries were made for Radha Kishan Agarwal, the hirer of the locker No. 2100 as shown in the record of the said vault, at 8 Lyons Range, 5th Floor, Calcutta, which revealed that no such person in the name of Radha Kishan Agarwal ever stayed there. Thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used to be kept with him in the shop; that these lockers used to be operated by them unauthorisedly with the assistance of India Safe Deposit Vault authorities and they could operate these lockers any number of times and at any time without going through the required formalities; that the Indian currency of Rs. 6,00,000/- kept in locker No. 2100 was their firm s money and were not accounted for and that was why the same had been kept in the locker in fictitious name and address to avoid detection. In the said statement he admitted that some diamonds and precious stones belonged to him which were purchased from Bombay brokers without any bills or voucher and that some of those belonged to few other persons whose names were written on the papers packets containing diamonds. He also admitted that some diamonds were of foreign origin. 8. In a subsequent statement made on 18-3-1975, Shri J.T. Mehta, however, retracted from the points disclosed by him earlier. He further denied about the knowledge of any persons whose names appeared in some of the seized packets excepting one Shri M.L. Bartya, whose business or residential address he failed to furnish. 9. Show Cause Notice was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this opinion furnished by Rujni Bhai Mehta is based on relevant materials and the same is to be accepted on the facts and circumstances of this case. 15. Replying the above-said contentions the learned Advocate Shri Prantosh Mukherjee made four-fold submissions in this regard. In the first instance, he contended that the adjudicating authority cannot go beyond the parameters laid down in the Remand Order. It was his contention that the Board had come to the conclusion that the burden was shifted on to appellants to prove that the goods in question are not smuggled and hence the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act was available to the Department. He, therefore, contended that these facts cannot now be reopened. 16. Alternatively, in the second instance, he contended that there were materials in this case, for the seizing officers to arrive at a reasonable belief that these goods are smuggled in nature and hence the burden had shifted on to the appellants to prove that these are not smuggled goods. The third limb of argument of the learned Advocate is that even otherwise, there are materials and circumstances in this case to arrive at a conclusion that the burden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a High Court enunciated the above principles. Shri Mukherjee also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1360 (SC) = 1984 ECR 121 (S.C.) [Pukhraj v. D.R. Kohli] and argued that if a particular act is to be done in a particular way then it shall be done in that manner alone and it is prohibited to do the thing in any other manner. These principles enunciated by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be disputed. But the point to be determined in this case is whether there was any bar for the adjudicating authority to deal with the question of burden of proof in the light of the decision of the learned Board. The learned Advocate Shri R.N. Bajoria took us through the orders passed by Central Board of Excise Customs and pointed out that there is no such conclusion arrived by the Board in this case. We also could not find any such finding by the Board in this behalf. Moreover, the relevant portion of the orders passed by the Board in the matter of remand reads as follows :- So far as the case relating to precious stones, diamonds and jewellery set with precious stones and diamonds are concerned, the case is remanded to the Collector for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellery without carefully examining them. In fact as he has said on careful examination of the jewellery in Box E, they are of Indian origin". 20. It was, therefore, contended by Shri Bajoria that the very basis on which the seizing Officers seized diamonds being based on an incomplete examination by the expert, it is clear that there were no prima facie materials for him to come to a reasonable belief that these diamonds are smuggled ones. He also stated that as admitted by this expert, the diamonds in Box E are of Indian origin. 21. In order to justify his arguments, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sajjan Kumar Poddar and eight Others v. Collector of Customs (Prev.), Calcutta in Order No. A 487-495 Cal/91 reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 283 (Tri.). In that case, the Tribunal held as follows :- It is no doubt true that in all such cases whether or not the officer concerned had entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a matter which can be placed under legal microscope with an overindulgent eye. But there must be a prima facie material to come to that conclusion that if such material is there the Tribunal has to accept the officer s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by statute. There was nothing to suggest the foreign origin of the goods. There was nothing to suggest the illegal importation of the goods into the country. 60. The goods must be smuggled goods. The word smuggled means that the goods were of foreign origin and they had been imported from abroad. Only then does the presumption under Section 123 arise. The goods themselves did not suggest that the petitioner was an old smuggler or a dealer in smuggled goods. If there was any such information with the customs, they ought to have disclosed it. The goods themselves did not suggest any illicit importation. Nor was there any inscription on the goods which could be the basis of the reasonable belief that the goods were of foreign origin. There was nothing in the appearance of the goods to suggest that they had been newly manufactured and brought into this country very recently from another country. In a word there was nothing absolutely from which inferences about their origin or recent import could arise. It was not a case where large quantity of gold with foreign markings was found hidden in the trousers of the accused as happened in Hukma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC476." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the appellants. The reason is that under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 the burden had not shifted on to the appellants to prove that these diamonds and wrist watches were smuggled ones. The Department has not laid any evidence to show that these diamonds were illegally imported into India." 22. The facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, the seizure memo indicated that what the Officers seized was, stones appearing to be diamonds . If that were to be so, there could not have been any reasonable belief that what was seized was diamonds, smuggled into India. The reason is the Officer was not sure whether those were diamonds or not. In that view of the matter this Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Shantilal Mehta s case cited supra and held that there were no materials to hold that officers entertained a reasonable belief. 23. In this connection, the learned Advocate Shri Prantosh Mukherjee placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indru Ramchand Bharvani Others v. Union of India Others, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 201 (SC) = 1988 (18) ECC 1 = 1988 (19) ECR 295 SC, wherein, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by a reasonable and prudent person and in this case there were materials for the officers which were relevant and germane to come to such conclusion. 25. In this connection, it is very material to quote para 15 of the above-cited decision wherein their Lordships held as follows :- However, it was contended on their behalf that reasonable belief could not be based on presumptions. Reliance was placed on a Bench decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Shantilal Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1715]. There it was asserted that the goods in question belonged to Queen Mother of Nepal and they were duly entered in the account books. But the accountant had gone to the Income Tax Department. The Customs Officer did not wait for the accountant to arrive to explain the entries in the accounts books to him and seized the goods which in the search list was described as appearing to be diamonds". Due to these facts the learned Single Judge held that it was not a case of reasonable belief but only a case of suspicion. In the instant case, as per the High Court s order the Customs Department had definite secret information. Despite petitioner s assertion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Courts have to accept the officer s belief regardless of the fact whether the Court of its own might or might not have entertained the same belief. The law declared by this Court is binding to the High Court and it was not open to the High Court to do exactly what it was cautioned against by this Court. Section 123 of the Act does not admit of any other construction. Whether or not the officer concerned had entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a matter which can be placed under legal microscope, with an over-indulgent eye which sees no evil anywhere within the range of its eyesight. The circumstances have to be viewed from the experienced eye of the officer who is well-equipped to interpret the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief in the light of the said circumstances. In the present case the concerned official had mentioned three circumstances which made him entertain the reasonable belief that the article was smuggled one viz.: (1) On the basis of the prior information he was alert and was on the look out, watching the movements of respondent No. 1. (2) The chain which had adorned the waistline of respondent No. 1 was coated with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd precious stones on the date of search and opined that those were imported. (Copy of the opinion enclosed). 2. On 20-2-1975 the locker No. 2051 in the said vault hired in the name of one Sri P.K. Gupta of 71, Beadon Street, Calcutta was searched on the strength of Search Authorisation No. 37/P of 1975 issued under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said locker was broken open in presence of independent witness and Sri J.G. Patel, Director of the said vault, as the purported hirer on enquiry was found to be fictitious. As a result of the search large quantities of diamonds, jewelleries set with diamonds and precious stones were recovered along with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in Indian currency, wrapped in a Magazine titled Shafetips dt. 25-1-1975. The diamonds, jewelleries set with diamonds and the precious stones were seized in the reasonable belief that those were smuggled and were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Indian currency was also seized in the reasonable belief that the same was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods and was liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The magazine was also seized bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddy, the expert was obtained, which according to him, was given without examining these goods carefully. However, that was not the basis on which the seizure was made since there were prima facie materials to arrive at such a conclusion, on the basis of relevant circumstances and on the preponderance of evidence, the Tribunal cannot sit on judgment over the same. Accordingly, we hold as per Point No. (2) that the burden was shifted on to the appellants to prove that these diamonds seized in this case are not smuggled ones. 33. Point No. (3): As far as this point is concerned, it is seen that the appellants have to discharge the burden cast on them by showing that these goods are not smuggled in nature. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary for us to deal with the impugned order wherein the learned adjudicating Officer has clearly stated the result of the opinion furnished by the Government expert with respect to the diamonds in question. The learned adjudicating Officer has relied on this opinion furnished by the Government Expert and had confiscated the diamonds in question in conformity with the opinion furnished by him. The relevant portion of his order in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and allowed that these diamonds were to be examined by Shri J.M. Auddy, the Govt. Expert in the presence of the appellant and Rujni Bhai Mehta also should examine these diamonds in the presence of the Govt. Expert. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Collector is found in pages 25 and 26 of the impugned order. It was stated by him that the request of the appellants for re-examination of the diamonds by Shri Auddy in the presence of the appellants and their own jewellery expert were acceded to. In such circumstances, it was contended before us that when the learned Collector himself had allowed the diamonds to be examined by their own expert who was chosen by him out of five names supplied by appellants, he should not have ignored the opinion of Shri Rujni Mehta without giving sufficient reasons in this behalf. 37. Shri Bajoria pointed out that the only ground on which the opinion of Shri Mehta was not relied on was that he did not produce any evidence to prove that the diamond cutting industry in India had reached such a level of fine cutting as done by the foreign countries by the year 1970. Therefore, the learned Collector held that the opinion given by h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cut of diamond is the evolution of a geometrical process. Diamond cutting is being done in many countries of the world e.g. Belgium, Israel, England, U.S.A. Pae to Rico and India etc. Techniques employed are the same everywhere. However deviations from the Ideal Cut are very practised for Trade, Economics and Seasonal Demands. Definition of the cut in relation to the country of manufacture is not possible as the technical aspects of cutting are all similar. Antwarp being an International market of diamonds, polished diamonds are received from all the cutting centres of the world of all qualities and cuttings. With regard to Indian Polished Diamonds that are being imported in this country the quality and cutting standards are similar, which is apparent on the increasing imports of Diamonds into this country in recent months. Antwarp, March 10,1965. KANAR VAN KOOPHANDE 4 Four Le PRESIDENT ANTWARP V.Z.W. Dola CHAMBER do COMMERCE D8 Anvers Stamped and sealed by Justice of Peace, Greater Bombay. Sd/- Bready" True copy of the Document presented R.C. Kothari 21-3-1965 J.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is concerned, with respect to the diamonds which are at B as cited above, he was of the opinion that they maybe of foreign origin. Shri Auddy is not therefore definite whether they are foreign in origin or not. By giving an opinion that they may be of foreign origin, it also indicates that they can also be of Indian origin. The opinion of Shri Rujni Mehta that these diamonds are Indian in origin is not controverted by the opinion of Shri Auddy in view of the fact that he was not definite that these diamonds are of foreign origin. Therefore, the probabilities of the case are to be taken into consideration. 44. In a case like this it is a well-established principle that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient in this case that the appellant succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. In other words, the onus of an accused person may well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings, and just as in civil proceedings, the court trying an issue makes its decrees by adopting the best of probabilities, so must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portance and the case is to be decided on the probabilities of the case. If that is so, the opinion of Rujni Bhai Mehta that these diamonds are Indian in origin about which he has categorically opined, is partially corroborated by the evidence of Shri J.M. Auddy in view of the fact that he was also of the opinion that they may be of Indian origin. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the appellant has discharged the burden with respect to this item also. 48. Now, what remains is items mentioned in A which are the diamonds found in Locker No. 1803, packets C, C-1, C5, C11, C13, C14, C15, C17, C19, C20, C22, C25, C26, C33, and C34. With respect to these diamonds Shri J.M. Auddy has categorically stated that they are of foreign origin. But Shri Rujni Bhai Mehta stated that these are of Indian origin. 49. In category A, some of the Diamonds in Locker No. 2051 is also confiscated absolutely. They are as follows :- Box A ..... Packer A7 Box B ...... Packer B21 Box C ....... Packer C3" According to Shri Rujni Bhai Mehta all these above-mentioned diamonds except one or two are Indian in origin. But according to the Government expert, all these diamonds are of foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng. This distinction has now disappeared for some time, since Indian artisans have acquired the equipment and skills to compete in the international market. These skills have been particularly enhanced from 1970. It is for this reason that he was quite confident that the diamonds in packet C could have easily been cut in India as by that time (1975) this country had acquired the knowledge and equipments to carry out such fine cuttings. 52. The above-said observations indicate that Rujni Bhai Mehta was of the opinion that diamonds in packets C could have easily been cut in India whereas the Government Expert is of the opinion that they are of foreign cuttings. Even if it is assumed that Indian Experts have acquired the skill much earlier than 1975 to cut the diamonds as that of foreign Experts, still the fact remains that it cannot be said from this fact whether the diamonds are of Indian in origin or foreign in origin. It should be remembered that the burden is now on the appellants to prove that these are not smuggled diamonds. 53. In this connection, it is necessary for us to find out whether the burden is discharged by the appellants and if so, the materials available in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the prosecution which is required to prove its case. In Rex v. Carr-Briant, 1943-1 KB 607, a somewhat similar question arose before the English Court of Appeal. In that case, the appellant was charged with the offence of corruptly making a gift or loan to a person in the employ of the War Department as an inducement to show, or as a reward for showing favour to him. The charge was laid under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, and in respect of such a charge, S. 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, had provided that a consideration shall be deemed to be given corruptly unless the contrary is proved. The question which arose before the Court was: what is the accused required to prove if he wants to claim the benefit of the exception? At the trial, the Judge had directed the jury that the onus of proving his innocence lay on the accused and that the burden of proof resting on him to negative corruption was as heavy as that ordinarily resting on the prosecution. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that this direction did not correctly represent the true position in law. It was held by the Court of Appeal that where, either by statute or at Common law, some matter is pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p 863) held as follows :- Large scale smuggling of gold or other goods into India may pose a threat to the economic and fiscal interests and policies of the State. Such illicit trade is often carried on by organised international smugglers in the secrecy of the underworld. The more it is organised, the less are the chances of its detection and greater the difficulty of proving the offences relating thereto. Laws have therefore been enacted in most countries, which mark a partial or wholesale departure in matters relating to smuggling, from the general principle of penal law, viz., that it is for the State or its Department to prove the offence against the accused or the defendant. Thus in England, Section 290 (2) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 provides that where in any proceedings relating to Customs or Excise any question arises as to the place from which any goods have been lawfully imported etc. then the burden of proof shall lie upon the other party to the proceeding. In India, Parliament inserted Section 178-A by the Amending Act 10 of 1957, but it did not, in its wisdom, go as far as Section 290(2) of the English Act. Section 178-A in terms applies to gold, gold ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from the quality and type of cutting. But now this distinction has disappeared for some time, since Indian artisans have acquired the equipments and skill to compete in the international market. These skills have been particularly enhanced from 1970. It was for these reasons he opined that diamonds at Packet C also could have easily been cut in India as by that time (1975) India also had acquired the knowledge and equipments to carry out such fine cuttings. These observations of the adjudicating Officer were quoted by us in Para 51 of this order : 60. Hence, his opinion, even if accepted, could only be accepted to the extent that from the cutting of these diamonds no conclusion can be drawn that they are foreign diamonds in view of the fact that by 1975 India had also acquired such degree of skill as that of other advanced countries. 61. The adjudicating Officer has again observed in his order as follows with reference to the opinions rendered before them by the Experts. The same reads as follows :- Shri Mehta disagreed with Shri Auddy s opinion that rough diamonds which are sent to India for cutting from various sources including London Diamond Syndicate are not of ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which are cut in India do not have fine or uniform table. He was also of the opinion that the quality of Indian cut diamonds is not high either, inasmuch as most of the diamonds cut in India are spotted or coloured or have some flaws in them. According to him those which are cut abroad are of much higher quality and would be of higher value per carat. Another opinion furnished by him is that since these diamonds are found in large quantities and since they match each other in shape and quality the owner would have taken about 20 years or more to collect them. 63. Shri Bajoria pointed out that this opinion cannot be relied upon in preference to that of Rujni Bhai Mehta in view of the fact that Indian cutters also have attained great skill in cutting them even from 1949 onwards. He also relied upon the observations of this Tribunal in an unreported decision in the case of Shri Chand Sagar v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal in Order No. 80/Cal/88 dated 29th April, 1988. Shri Bajoria relied on the following observations of the Tribunal in that case :- The opinion of the second expert, namely, Sri Sircar was also admittedly taken by the department during investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be made earlier from the quality and type of cutting which had disappeared since India also had attained that skill from 1949 itself. If that is so, his later opinion that diamonds in Box C are cut in Pan Shape and Square Shape and hence it is Indian cutting is contradictory to the earlier opinion, as mentioned in the order. Further, in the later part of the order, the adjudicating Officer at running page 11 of the order observed as follows :- Throughout the party s expert Shri Rujni Bhai Mehta took the view that all diamonds except in one or two cases were of Indian cut. 66. This opinion of his read as a whole is highly contradictory and much reliance cannot be placed on the same. On the contrary, the opinion of Gemmological of America dated September 17, 1976, which was produced by the appellant and which is at Page 57 of the Paper-book reads as follows :- To our knowledge, there is no practical way in which the origin of a diamond can be determined after it has been cut and polished. Even before cutting it is simply a matter of probability as to its source." 67. Further, the opinion of Gemmological Institute of India dated August 7, 1976 which was produced by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts case beyond reasonable doubt. The same can be proved on preponderance of probabilities. In the case of D. Bhoormull, Hon ble Supreme Court at Paras 30 and 31 held as follows :- 30. It cannot be disputed that in proceedings for imposing penalties under Clause (8) of Section 167, to which Section 178-A does not apply, the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled goods, is on the Department. This is a fundamental rule relating to proof in all criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, where there is no statutory provision to the contrary. But in appreciating its scope and the nature of the onus cast by it, we must pay due regard to other kindered principles, no less fundamental, of universal application. One of them is that the prosecution or the Department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision to a demonstrable degree: for, in all human affairs absolute certainty is a myth, and as Prof. Brett felicitously puts it - all exactness is a fake". El Dorado of absolute Proof being unattainable, the law, accepts for it, probability as a working substitute in this work-a-day world. The law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. All that it r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some of these belonged to few other persons whose names were written on paper packets ; (7) In the above statement he also admitted that some of these diamonds are foreign in origin; (8) It was only on 18-3-1975 Shri Mehta retracted from this statement made on 27-2-1975; (9) Before the Central Board of Excise Customs, Shri Jayantilal Mehta urged that all these diamonds and jewelleries had been received by him on trust from the Queen Mother of Bhutan and her daughter and because of this trust he did not disclose their identity at the time of seizure and he got the lockers in fictitious names; (10) Thus there are inconsistent statements and claim made by him at different stages of the proceedings; (11) The Board remanded the case for de novo adjudication and it was ordered in the remand that appellant Shri Jayantilal Mehta should arrange to have the claim of the Royal House of Bhutan established without any avoidable delay; (12) During de novo adjudication proceedings in spite of issue of notice Royal House of Bhutan did not take part and appellant Jayantilal Mehta could not produce any evidence to prove this later claim made by him. 73. It is thus seen that the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It will only alleviate that burden to discharge which very slight evidence may suffice. 33. Another point to be noted is that the incidence, extent and nature of the burden of proof for proceedings for confiscation under the first part of the entry in the 3rd column of Clause (8) of Section 167 may not be the same as in the proceedings when the imposition of the other kind of penalty under the second part of the entry is contemplated. We have already alluded to this aspect of the matter : It will be sufficient to reiterate that the penalty of confiscation is a penalty in rem which is enforced against the goods and the second kind of penalty is one in personam which is enforced against the person concerned in the smuggling of the goods. In the case of the former, therefore, it is not necessary for the Customs authorities to prove that any particular person is concerned with their illicit importation or exportation. It is enough if the Department furnishes prima facie proof of the goods being smuggled stocks. In the case of the latter penalty, the Department has to prove further that the person proceeded against was concerned in the smuggling." 75. In view of the above principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
