New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 675 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (9) TMI 675 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 101 (Del.) - Smuggling of gold - section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - inspection of goods declared - silver bricks contained gold - statements made under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 - Whether sanction Ex.PW-1/B granted by the Commissioner of Customs was proved given that the sanctioning authority was not examined as a witness? - Held that:- the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Mohd. Anwar [2010 (10) TMI 366 - DEL .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r of evidence and was not relevant at the stage of framing of the charge - contention of accused could not be accepted. - Whether a prima-facie case of commission of offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was made out against A-2 to A-5? - Held that: - Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that any person ‘knowingly in any way concerned’ in the evasion of payment of duty would be liable under the section - the order discharging A-1 and A-2 has been set aside w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. They were: (i) Ganji Satyanarayana Dasu; (ii) Padmanabhan; (iii) Naresh Jain; (iv) Surender Jain; and (v) Prakash. 2. The case of the customs was that on June 22, 1995 Ganji Satyanarayana Dasu (A-1) attempted to smuggle gold into India from Dubai. Upon arriving at IGI airport, he declared 42 gold biscuits weighing 4.914 kgs and 3 silver bricks weighing 99.97 kgs, however, upon inspection of the silver bricks in the preventive room by cu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. After recording pre-charge evidence, the learned ACMM discharged the accused observing that the sanction Ex.PW-1/B was not valid because the sanctioning authority had not been examined; there was a material omission in not presenting the retraction of the accused persons before the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction; the panch witnesses who had witnessed the recovery of gold from Ganji Satyanarayana A-1 had not been examined and offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Custom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

35(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was made out against A-2 to A-5. 5. Regarding the first issue, relying on the judgment of this Court reported as 2010 (4) JCC 2986 (Delhi) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Mohd. Anwar, the learned Judge has held that the only requirement at the stage of framing of charge was to prove that the sanction was granted by the sanctioning authority after due application of mind. The learned Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 2006 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the sanction Ex.PW1/B had been duly accorded by the sanctioning authority. 6. Regarding the second issue, the learned Judge has held that the contention of the accused that the sanction Ex.PW-1/B had been granted by the Commissioner of Customs without due application of mind, since the retraction of the accused was not placed before the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction, could not be accepted. According to the learned Judge, whether the sanction was granted by the Commiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A.M. Sidharthan PW-2, a prima-facie case was made out against Ganji Satyanarayana A-1. As regards Padmanabha Manon Rajaram A-2 the learned Judge has noted that he had admitted in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 that he had escorted Ganji Satyanarayana A-1 from Dubai to India and had acted as a guard to the consignment of gold being smuggled. The learned Judge has also noted that this role of A-2 had been mentioned in the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

im had been brought on record. As per the learned Judge, the statement of the co-accused Surender Jain (A-3) under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was to the effect that the statement of Surender Jain A-3 that it was he i.e. Naresh Jain who suggested A-1 and A-2 to smuggle gold, and this was insufficient to frame the charge. 9. As regards Surender Jain A-3, the learned Judge has noted that as per the statements of Ganji Padmanabha, Padmanabha Manon Rajaram and Surender Jain himself, the smu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version