TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of the foreign-marked gold bars by the customs authorities in 1993 was from the police so as to exclude the applicability of the Customs/Sea Customs burden-of-proof provisions; (ii) whether, on the facts proved, the burden of showing lawful import or lawful purchase of the gold lay on the respondent and whether confiscation and penalty were justified.
Issue (i): Whether the seizure of the foreign-marked gold bars by the customs authorities in 1993 was from the police so as to exclude the applicability of the Customs/Sea Customs burden-of-proof provisions.
Analysis: The earlier criminal court orders showed that the goods were ordered to be released to the legal representative after deposit of fine, but were thereafter directed to remain in safe custody with the State Bank of India while the customs authorities were given liberty to take legal steps regarding foreign-origin gold. On that footing, the goods were not treated as remaining in exclusive police custody when customs action was taken. The Court held that the respondent had symbolic possession of the articles and that the customs seizure was from the respondent through the bank custody arrangement, not a seizure from the police in the sense relied upon by the Tribunal.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding that there was no customs seizure because the goods had earlier been seized by the police was held unsustainable, and the customs seizure was treated as legally effective.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts proved, the burden of showing lawful import or lawful purchase of the gold lay on the respondent and whether confiscation and penalty were justified.
Analysis: The gold bore foreign markings, and the only explanation advanced was that it had been purchased from the Reserve Bank of India through brokers, without any supporting proof of purchase, date, broker identity, or documentary evidence. The Court held that, even apart from Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the Department had shown prima facie circumstances of illicit import, while the facts as to lawful purchase and timing were especially within the respondent's knowledge. Applying the principles of burden of proof and special knowledge, the Court held that the respondent failed to rebut the inference of smuggled origin. The prohibition against import of gold after the 25 August 1948 notification was also held to support the Revenue's case.
Conclusion: The burden was held to lie on the respondent, the gold was treated as illegally imported after the prohibition, and confiscation with penalty was upheld in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered for the Revenue, the Tribunal's contrary order was set aside, and the adjudicatory confiscation order was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Where foreign-marked goods are shown to be in circumstances giving rise to a prima facie inference of smuggled import, the burden shifts to the person in special knowledge of the lawful source or timing of acquisition to prove lawful import or lawful purchase; failure to do so justifies confiscation proceedings in rem.
TaxTMI 
