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 acquittal in Customs Act case alleging conspiracy to import contraband.</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Versus Mohammed Sultan Abdul Rehman Mapari, Ali Wajiuddin Parkar And State of Maharashtra, (represented by the Government Pleader (A.S.), Bombay</h3> Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Versus Mohammed Sultan Abdul Rehman Mapari, Ali Wajiuddin Parkar And State of Maharashtra, (represented by the ... Issues:1. Appeal against acquittal under Customs Act, 1962 and Indian Penal Code.2. Allegations of conspiracy to import contraband goods.3. Evidence regarding seized goods and their custody.Analysis:1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs filed an appeal against the acquittal of accused nos. 1 and 3 under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and other relevant provisions. The appeal was based on the import of goods of foreign origin by accused no. 1 under the Transfer of Residence (T & R) facility, where unclaimed packages containing contraband goods were seized by Customs officers. The total value of the seized goods was &8377; 7,81,540. The accused were charged with conspiracy to import contraband goods in violation of import regulations and customs laws.2. The complaint alleged that accused no. 1 imported goods consigned to accused no. 2 under the T.R. facility, and accused no. 3 was involved in receiving the goods after customs clearance. The prosecution contended that all accused conspired to import the goods illegally, leading to charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The trial court acquitted accused nos. 1 and 3 of all charges.3. The evidence presented during the trial highlighted discrepancies regarding the custody of the seized goods between February 7, 1985, and March 5, 1988. Witness testimonies indicated that the goods were removed from Indira Dock to Customs Warehouse on different dates, raising questions about the custody and examination of the goods during this period. The prosecution failed to clarify these discrepancies and provide evidence regarding the custody of the goods, leading to uncertainties about the handling of the seized items. The court concluded that the trial court's acquittal of accused nos. 1 and 3 was reasonable based on the evidence presented and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
TaxTMI 