TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds confiscation of Bangladeshi synthetic fabrics valued at Rs. 1.62 lakhs in smuggling case.</h1> <h3>PRADIP KR. DUTTA Versus COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), WEST BENGAL</h3> The court upheld the confiscation of synthetic fabrics of Bangladeshi origin, valued at Rs. 1.62 lakhs, in a smuggling case. Despite appellants' claims of ... Evidence - Confessional statement - Seizure Issues: Smuggling of synthetic fabrics, ownership claims, voluntariness of statements, origin of seized goods, confiscation of goods and penaltiesSmuggling of Synthetic Fabrics:The judgment revolves around the interception of a car loaded with 200 thans of synthetic fabrics of Bangladeshi origin valued at Rs. 1.62 lakhs. The four appellants claimed various roles related to the car and the fabrics, admitting the smuggled nature of the goods and their involvement in transporting contraband to Calcutta. The appellants were arrested and produced before the court, leading to the initiation of proceedings against them. The original adjudicating authority confiscated the seized fabrics and imposed penalties on the individuals.Ownership Claims and Voluntariness of Statements:The appellants contended that the car was fitted with red lights and a 'Government of India on duty' plate under the instructions of a specific individual who had been let off by the Commissioner (Appeals). They argued that the statements given by them while in custody should not be considered voluntary and true. However, the court found that the appellants had initially admitted to the contraband nature of the goods and their foreign origin in their statements, which were reiterated even when they were in judicial custody. The court dismissed the belated retraction of statements as an afterthought and upheld the admissibility of the statements as evidence.Origin of Seized Goods:The appellants disputed the origin of the seized fabrics, claiming there was no expert test report proving the Bangladeshi origin of the goods. Despite this, the court noted that the appellants had admitted to the Bangladeshi origin of the goods in their statements. The presence of marks of Bangladesh on the fabrics further supported this admission. The court upheld the authorities' decision to reject the appellants' plea for a test report, citing the appellants' clandestine activities, use of unauthorized red lights, and the presence of foreign origin goods in the car as evidence of smuggling.Confiscation of Goods and Penalties:Ultimately, the court found that the cumulative evidence, including the appellants' statements, the presence of foreign origin goods, and their unauthorized use of the vehicle with government markings, led to the conclusion that the synthetic fabrics were of contraband nature. As a result, the court upheld the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of penalties on the appellants. The appeals were rejected, and stay petitions were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
