Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Sachidananda Banerjee A.C.C. Calcutta vs Sitaram Agarwala on 5 October, 1965
3. Ld. Counsel Shri A. Thiagarajan submits that except this statement there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the appellant in either smuggling of the gold or bringing the gold within the boundaries of the Indian territory. He submits that appellant is not connived with real smugglers and smuggled seized gold biscuits. The department has proceeded on the basis of the statement that he was waiting for Vijayakumar to receive the gold. He submits that this amount of statement is not sufficient to uphold the guilty and to impose penalty. Even if the person was waiting to receive gold or currency and if the transaction is not completed, then it cannot be said that he was involved in the act of smuggling. He contends that this was the view expressed by the Apex Court tinder the Constitution Bench in the of Additional Coll. of Customs, Calcutta v. Sitaram Aggarwala reported in 1999 (110) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has laid down the preposition that merely because an accused was having currency and was to buy foreign gold biscuits that by itself will not prove the of appellant being guilty of the offence. Ld. Counsel submits that this ratio clearly applies to the facts of the although the said judgment was rendered under the previous provisions of Section 167(8) of Sea Customs Act, 1878 in correspondence to Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that same provision has been incorporated under the Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the ratio of the Constitutional Bench stands for application in this also.
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
1