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>Customs Authority's Duty to Assess Evidence: Petition for Seized Gold Bars Disposed</h1> <h3>Ronakkumar S/O Harishankar Bhatt Versus Deputy Commissioner Customs</h3> Ronakkumar S/O Harishankar Bhatt Versus Deputy Commissioner Customs - TMI Issues:Petition under Articles 226 and 227 for release of seized gold bars by Custom Authority. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Premature petition disposal without entering into merits.Analysis:The petitioner, a Sales Executive with a company in Bahrain, had three gold bars seized by Custom Authority upon arrival from Dubai to Ahmedabad. The seizure was under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act after a personal search at the airport. The petitioner later approached the Authority with representations and evidence to release the gold bars, citing lack of legal knowledge for not paying the customs duty. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay the duty and clarified that there was no intent to smuggle the gold bars, which were purchased with hard-earned money for an upcoming marriage.The Court noted Section 123 of the Act places the burden of proof on the person from whom the goods were seized to show they are not smuggled. It emphasized that the Quasi Judicial Authority must discharge its obligations under the law and carefully examine the evidence presented before adjudicating the matter. The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, considering it premature as the Authority was already seized with the matter. The petitioner was granted the liberty to submit additional evidence if desired, with assurance that the matter would be decided in accordance with the law. The disposal of the petition was stated not to hinder the petitioner's legal recourse or the Authority's adjudication process.In conclusion, the petition seeking release of the gold bars was disposed of without entering into the merits of the case. The Court emphasized the importance of the Authority's examination of evidence and adherence to legal procedures under the Customs Act. The petitioner was allowed to provide further evidence, maintaining the right to pursue legal remedies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
