Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (2.26 seconds)Kanungo & Company vs Collector Of Customs And Ors. on 7 February, 1972
5. Smt. Nisha Chaturvedi, Learned SDR for the appellant observed that since the garments in question were seized in pursuance of information and on a reasonable belief that the same had been imported into India in contravention of the provisions of different laws, it was for the respondent to prove that the garments in question were leglly imported. She also cited "the decisions rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Natwar Lal Damodar Pass, AIR 1980 SC Shah Chuman Mai v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1983 ELT 1931 (SC) and Kanungo & Co., v. Collector. Customs, 1983 ELT 1486 (SC) by the hon'ble Supreme Court to show that even in cases where Section 123(1) of the Customs Act is not attracted, the prosecution discharges its burden by establishing circumstances from which a prudent person acting prudently, may infer that in all probabilities the goods in question were smuggled goods and the accused had the requisite knowledge, and that the Department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision to a demonstrable degree and further that the burden of proof on the Department gets discharged by falsifying many particulars of the story put forward by the accused and the false denial could be relied upon for concluding that goods have been illegally imported. While elaborating her arguments, she submitted that the respondent initially took the defence that the garments were purchased from hawkers in Kali Market, Calcutta, but later on stated that he had purchased the same from M/s. Abdul Rashid and Saheb Khan, both having same address as 107, Kali Bazaar, Calcutta.. She further submitted that on varification both the Cash Memos produced by the respondent were found to be false.
Section 111 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Arvinder Singh Kocher vs Collector Of Customs on 13 December, 1985
In the case of Arvinder Singh Kocher v. Collector of Customs, - 1986(26) - ELT 792 this Tribunal held that the initial burden lies on the Department when the goods are neither notified under Chapter IV-A nor under Section 123 of the Customs Act and even if it is assumed that the goods (in that case T-Shirts and half shirts) were of foreign origin that by itself would not be sufficient to order confiscation in the absence of clear evidence that they were smuggled goods. On this point, the following observations may be extracted with advantages:
1