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: Whether the prosecution proved that the revision petitioner was in possession of the premises and had possession or control over the contraband goods so as to sustain the conviction under the Customs Act.
Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the revision petitioner was in possession of the house from which the goods were seized. The prosecution witnesses did not support exclusive possession by him, and the witness who spoke about possession stated that the owner was in possession on the relevant date. The statement of the co-accused could not be treated as substantive evidence against the petitioner to prove his possession. In the absence of proof that he possessed or controlled the premises, the inference that he concealed the smuggled goods could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the revision petitioner. The conviction and sentence under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for possession-related customs offences cannot stand unless the prosecution proves, by admissible substantive evidence, that the accused was in possession or control of the premises or goods.
TaxTMI 
