Customs Act| Burden Of Proof To Show That Seized Gold Is Not Smuggled Is On Person Who Possesses It: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court has observed that the conditions under the Customs Act, 1962, have to be mandatorily and statutorily followed otherwise the ‘gold’ brought from another country would fall within the category of “Prohibited goods”.
The Court also relied on Section 123 of the Customs Act and said that where any goods under this section have been seized, under the reasonable belief of it being tried to be smuggled, the burden of proof that they are not smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession the gold was seized.
The Division Bench of Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice N Tukaramji observed, “The above provision would clearly reflect that where any goods under this Section have been seized, under the reasonable belief of it being tried to be smuggled, the burden of proof that they are not smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession the gold was seized...the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the item “gold” is not a “prohibited good”, cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that there are certain conditions which have to be mandatorily and statutorily followed in the event of import being made. Further, if such statutory and mandatory requirements are not complied with, the said goods when tried to be smuggled into the country would squarely falls within the definition of “prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act.”
Advocate N Krishna Sumanth appeared for the Petitioner whereas Standing Counsel Dominic Fernandes appeared for the Respondents.
Two writ petitions were filed seeking a declaration of the action of the Principal Commissioner of Customs seizing the gold, weighing 2,000 gms and 1793.500 gms. from the two petitioners at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, at Shamshabad, Hyderabad, to be bad in law, arbitrary and illegal. It was further prayed that the Respondents be directed to provisionally release the goods on payment of applicable duty under the Customs Act or any other conditions.
The petitioners contended that the said gold was purchased by them at Bangkok and they intended to declare the same. It was submitted that before they could reach the counter where the submission of declaration forms was accepted, they were intercepted by the Officers of the Customs Department.
The Court said that both the petitioners were carrying a large quantity of gold worth Rs. 1 Crore each at its cost price and the mode of payment at the time of purchase was not disclosed. It also noted that the petitioners did not carry/produce any authentic document in respect of the price of the gold or any declaration form. All of this was in violation of the. Customs Act.
The Court held, “Further, the manner in which the two petitioners had tried to bring the subject gold into India, put together the two consignments weighing roughly 3.8 kilograms. Further taking into consideration the stand that the two petitioners took in the course of the interrogation wherein they have specifically stated that the gold was not purchased by them and it was given to them by some unknown persons at Bangkok and to be handed over to some unknown person at Hyderabad after coming out of the airport, gives a clear picture of the intention of the petitioners to smuggle the gold into India from Bangkok.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the action initiated by the Commissioner of Customs was not at fault or arbitrary. Hence, the petitions were dismissed.
Cause Title: Shaik Mohammed Sadiq v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate N Krishna Sumanth
Respondents: SC Dominic Fernandes