TMI Blog1964 (8) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S.M. Cassim, Advocate for the petitioner on 11-8-1964 and of Mr. S. Mohan Kumaramangalam and Mr. S.M. Cassim, advocate for petitioner on 12-8-64 and of Mr. K. Venkataswami for the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent on both days the Court made the following Order : - 2.By an order dated January 23, 1962, the Collector of Central Excise, who is the respondent, confiscated certain gold ingots as smuggled gold and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the petitioner. The respondent in making that order acted under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 8 (1) and 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent, counsel for the petitioner stated that his client was not in a position to produce any accounts and he could not also substantiate his financial status to such an extent as to be in possession of the gold ingots or that he was running a business which would enable him to command the finance to enable him or his wife to own the jewels of so much worth. After asking for the explanation of the petitioner and giving a hearing to him the respondent noted that Mohideen Sahib had given a contradictory version, that Habeeb Mohammed was financially not so sound as to enable him to command the ingots and had no business from which it could be taken for granted that it was possible for Habeeb Mohammed or his wife to own the jewels of suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to be stated. It would appear that the Central Crime Branch Police authorities at Tirunelveli deposited the gold ingots with the Sub Magistrate at Tirunelveli who, on a requisition apparently by the customs authorities, handed them over to the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise on December 23, 1960. Mohideen applied to the Sub Magistrate for return of the gold ingots but this petition was dismissed in the first week of December 1961. It is clear therefore that the customs authorities came in possession of the gold ingots not by themselves seizing the same but on a requisition from the Sub-Magistrate. As I said, the seizure of the ingots originally was by the Central Crime Branch Police authorities. Section 178 of the Sea Customs Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain statements made by three or four individuals including the petitioner and the receipt tor payment of melting charges by which it was explained by the petitioner that the gold ingots were not contraband and that, if the explanation was not accepted, it did not follow from it that the gold ingots must necessarily have been smuggled. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Amba Lal v. Union of India, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1321 (S.C.) = AIR 1961 S.C. 264. There it was held that where an accused contended that certain goods were imported from Pakistan before the Customs barrier was established, the onus was on the Customs authorities, to prove that they were imported after the barrier was put up and that the mere fact that the accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable to proceedings before the Customs authorities. But that does not mean that the customs authorities are relieved of the necessity to prove by evidence that particular goods which they confiscated, were smuggled goods. A variety of situations might be contemplated. For instance, a person from whom goods have been seized may offer an explanation as to the origin of the goods. If the explanation is not accepted, it does not necessarily follow from it that the goods are smuggled goods. That is not proof of smuggling. The department will still have to establish that they are such goods. In an effort to prove the explanation offered by the person from whom the goods were seized, he may have placed certain evidence which the customs authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent considered that the circumstantial evidence before him proved that the goods were smuggled. What was the circumstantial evidence before him I have already referred to the facts which the respondent deduced on the basis of the statements and materials placed before him by the petitioner to substantiate his explanation. Assuming that the statements and the explanation furnished by the petitioner were untrue and the receipt for payment of melting charges was a make believe one, assuming also that the petitioner is not a person of such means as one could reasonably expect him or his wife to own jewels or ingots of such high value, does it necessarily follow from these premises that the ingots of gold had been smuggled and that no oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
