TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey from New Delhi to Kathmandu (Nepal), and return. Before proceeding to Kathmandu, the petitioner desired to stop over at New Delhi for a few days for the purpose of meeting his friends and relatives at his native village at Tarn Taran (Disit. Amritsar). On arrival at Palam Airport the petitioner on entering the custom hall requested the Customs Officer on duty to keep his baggage containing the said goods in bonded custody with a request that the same be handed over to the petitioner on his onward journey to Kathmandu after a few days. The petitioner made a specific request for keeping the said goods in bond, but the Customs Officer insisted upon inspecting the said baggage. The petitioner told the Customs Officer that as the said goods were not to be taken across the customs barrier but were only required to be kept in bonded custody, the Customs Officer could not inspect the same and no purpose would be served in inspecting the same. The request of the petitioner was wrongly not acceded to and in spite of the petitioner repeatedly requesting the Customs Officer not to harass the petitioner in this manner, the baggage of the petitioner was opened up and searched. Though the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y next day of his release, requested the Collector of Customs to supply the petitioner with a copy of the `Panchnama' of the goods seized, a copy of the statement of the petitioner recorded on May 13, 1969, and a copy of the Baggage Declaration Form signed by the petitioner. The petitioner also sent a telegram on May 24, 1969 and another telegram dated June 3, 1969 with a view to obtain the copies of the said documents. The documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on June 10, 1969. Rule nisi was issued on June 11, 1969 and interim stay was granted. The writ petition has matured for hearing now. 5. The writ petition came up for hearing before me on 13th February, 1981 when it was part heard and the hearing continued on 16th February, 1981. Arguments were addressed by Shri Ravinder Narain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he made an endorsement on the declaration form and his statement was also recorded at the time of the alleged seizure. I considered it necessary to direct the counsel for the respondents to produce the original records and adjourned the case. Return to the Rule is the original records and that wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to proceed on the basis of allegations made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit and the documents placed on the record. Before going into facts, I would like to notice the legal background. The word `import' for purposes of the Act is defined as bringing into India from a place outside India. Smuggling is defined as any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. In different contexts, the expressions import and export have been construed by courts with reference to the customs frontiers of the Customs barriers. But of a question of import through an Aircraft, the question arises whether the moment the aircraft arrives in an international airport in the country the goods are imported. A Division Bench of this Court had considered this question in Union of India and Another v. Khalil Kecherim, 1970 Criminal Law Journal, 417 and held : "Unless, therefore, the goods are brought into the country for the purpose of use, enjoyment, consumption, sale or distribution so that they are incorporated in and mixed up with the mass of the property in the country, they cannot be said to have been imported or brought into the country. That th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d journey from New Delhi to Kathmandu and return. In the counter-affidavit it is admitted that the search of the petitioner resulted in the recovery of some documents including baggage claim tags and air tickets including an air ticket for journey from Delhi to Kathmandu and back. This is a circumstance in favour of the petitioner that the goods may have been intended to be taken to Kathmandu (Nepal) on petitioner's onward journey. It is the normal practice at all international Airports including the Delhi Airport to leave the baggage in bond if the same is not to be imported in that country and it is kept by the Customs authorities in bonded custody and is handed over to the passenger on his onward journey on leaving the country. The petitioner says that the bonded warehouse custody was demanded of the goods which were later on seized by the Customs authorities. The counter affidavit states that if a request for bonding of the goods had been made in the first instance, the Customs Officer would have acceded to his request as it is the normal practice with customs at Palam Airport to keep the baggage in bond if the same is not to be imported in this country and if a true declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
