Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1964 (11) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re was absolutely no material before respondent No. 3 on which he could have come to a finding that the petitioner had imported the said gold. We may also mention here that there is no allegation that the appellant himself smuggled the gold from outside the country. We do not agree with the High Court that it was implicit in this order that the Collector was fully satisfied that Shri Jagdish Singh was concerned in the offence described in S. 167(8) of the Act. Appeal allowed. - Appeal (civil) 777 of 1962 - - - Dated:- 23-11-1964 - K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ. B.D. Sharma, for the appellant. D.R. Prem, V.D. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents. [Judgment per : Raghubar Dayal, J.]. - A number of gold bars, held to be smuggled gold, were recovered from the person of the appellant on September 17, 1957, when he was going in a truck from Jaisalmer to Pokaran. The Superintendent of Land Customs issued a notice to the appellant on December 4, 1957, to show cause why penal action be not taken against him and as to why the goods should not be confiscated under S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878), hereinafte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... old and that the word 'concerned' in S. 167(8) of the Act be construed in the light of the policy of the Act and the difficulties in establishing the fact of a person found in possession of smuggled gold being actually concerned in the importing of it illegally. 4a.The relevant portion of S. 167(8) reads : The offences mentioned in the first column of the following schedule shall be punishable to the extent mentioned in the third column of the same with reference to such offences respectively :- (Column 1) Offences (Column 3) Penalties If any goods, the importation or exportation of which is for the time being prohibited or restricted by or under Ch. IV of this Act, be imported into or exported from India contrary to such prohibition or restriction, or if any attempt be made so to import or export any such goods, or if any such goods be found in any package produced to any officer of Customs as containing no such goods or if. Such goods shall be liable to confiscation; and any person concerned in any such offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three ti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s urged for the respondent. It may have the meanings 'involved' or 'engaged' or 'mixed up'. The requirements of the expression 'concerned in any such offence' in the penalty part of S. 167(8) are that the person to be penalised must be interested or involved or engaged or mixed up in the commission of the offence referred to in the first column of S. 167(8). The interest or the involvement or the engagement or the mixing up of the appellant in the commission of the offence must be at a stage prior to the completion of the offence of illegal importation of gold into the country. Once the gold has been imported, any subsequent interest etc., in the smuggled gold cannot bring in the person showing such interest etc., within the purview of S. 167(8) for the purposes of the imposition of the penalty. The offence of importation of goods is complete when the goods have crossed the customs frontier. This is clear from the provisions of S. 19 and also from those of S. 18 which, however, does not use the actual expression 'across the customs frontier'. 5.We are therefore of opinion that the mere finding of fact recorded by the Collector of Customs i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t for the Collector to be satisfied that Radha Kishan was concerned in the importation of the smuggled gold. 9.The circumstances referred to by the Punjab High Court appellate Bench may be sufficient for holding that the appellant knew that he was carrying smuggled gold and that he was thereby committing some offence. But we are unable to say how these circumstances lead to the conclusion that he must be 'concerned' in the importation of that gold. It is not invariably the case that smuggled things are carried by the smuggler himself or by someone who had taken steps for the smuggling of those goods. They can be carried by persons who had nothing to do with the smuggling or illegal importation of the goods into the country and had come to possess them subsequently even with the knowledge that they were smuggled goods. 10.The facts of Jagdish Singh's case, ILR (1962) 1 Punj 369: AIR 1962 Punj 484 were some what different. The conclusion, whose correctness is not before us for decision, about Jagdish Singh's being concerned in the illegal importation of the foreign watches was based not only on his being in possession of those watches after taking delivery of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... formed this opinion on the basis of his finding that Jagdish Singh was in possession of the smuggled watches. The way the Collector recorded his finding indicates that he concluded about Jagdish Singh's being concerned in the illegal importation of the watches merely on the basis of his being in possession of those watches. This he could not have justifiably done in view of what we have said above. The extract from the Collector's order in this connection is : Shri Jagdish Singh cannot absolve himself from the infringement of I.T.C. Regulations inasmuch as he was in possession of the offending watches. I, therefore, impose on Shri Jagdish Singh a personal penalty of ₹ 7000 . We do not agree with the High Court that it was implicit in this order that the Collector was fully satisfied that Shri Jagdish Singh was concerned in the offence described in S. 167(8) of the Act. 11.We therefore hold that a mere finding of fact that a person is in possession of smuggled goods does neither imply that the Collector of Customs had considered the question of the person's being concerned in the commission of the offence of illegal importation of the goods nor in any way .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates