Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the confiscation of the seized goods was sustainable on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the appellant's conduct, notwithstanding the non-application of the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the appellant established a bona fide lawful purchase so as to defeat confiscation.
Analysis: The goods were found in a consignment covered by a fictitious consignor's name and a deliberately false invoice. The appellant admitted purchasing YKK zip fasteners from an unknown person at Madras, arranging despatch through lorry, and having no purchase documents. He also did not promptly assert ownership. On these facts, the circumstances were considered sufficient to show, on a prudent man's estimate, that the goods were smuggled and that the appellant had guilty knowledge. The absence of the presumption under Section 123 did not prevent reliance on surrounding circumstances, including the principles governing burden of proof and adverse inference from unexplained facts within the appellant's special knowledge.
Conclusion: The confiscation was held to be lawful, and the appellant's claim of bona fide purchase without knowledge of smuggling was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Even where Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted, smuggled character and guilty knowledge may be proved by cumulative circumstantial evidence and adverse inference from unexplained facts within the purchaser's special knowledge.