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 Smuggling Conviction; Revises Sentence to Time Served and Fines Due to Circumstantial Evidence and Elapsed Time.</h1> <h3>Jalil Ahmad and Ors. Versus State</h3> Jalil Ahmad and Ors. Versus State - TMI Issues:Conviction under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, Seizure of goods by the proper officer, Definition of smuggling under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act, Knowledge of the nature of goods by the accused, Sentencing considerations.Conviction under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act:The judgment involves four revision applications against the conviction of the revisionists under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act. The prosecution case detailed the events leading to the arrest of the revisionists with smuggled goods in a motor truck. The revisionists were found guilty and sentenced to one year's R.I., a decision upheld on appeal. The revisionists did not contest the recovery of the goods, leading to the application of relevant provisions of the Customs Act.Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act:The defense argued that the goods were seized by a police officer and not the proper officer under the Customs Act, hence Section 123 did not apply. However, the court held that when the goods were handed over to Customs authorities, they were deemed seized by the proper officer, triggering the burden of proof on the revisionists. The court cited a precedent where goods seized by police and later handed to Customs were considered properly seized, emphasizing the revisionists' failure to prove the goods were not smuggled.Seizure of goods by the proper officer:The judgment delved into the definitions of 'proper officer' under the Customs Act and the procedures for search and seizure. The court clarified that the goods were effectively seized by the proper officer when handed over to Customs authorities, rejecting the argument that police seizure invalidated the application of Section 123 and emphasizing the importance of compliance with Customs Act procedures.Definition of smuggling under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act:The court analyzed the definition of smuggling under the Customs Act, emphasizing that goods with foreign markings, lacking evidence of legal import, and concealed for evasion of duties are deemed smuggled. The revisionists' failure to provide evidence of legal import or payment of duties led to the presumption that the goods were smuggled, justifying their confiscation under Section 111(i) of the Act.Knowledge of the nature of goods by the accused:The judgment considered the revisionists' claim of innocence regarding their knowledge of the smuggled goods. Citing precedents, the court highlighted circumstantial evidence indicating the revisionists' awareness of the nature of the goods, such as evasive actions during police interception and conflicting statements during the unloading process. The court concluded that the revisionists had knowledge of the illicit nature of the goods.Sentencing considerations:Regarding sentencing, the court noted the time elapsed since the seizure of goods and the revisionists' partial incarceration. The court opted for a reduced sentence of the period already served and imposed fines on each revisionist to serve the ends of justice, allowing for payment within a specified period. The judgment balanced the severity of the offense with the circumstances of the case to reach a fair sentencing decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
