1991 (7) TMI 101 - HC - Customs

Court upholds confiscation of gold bars by Customs, emphasizing burden of proof in smuggling cases

The court upheld the confiscation order of 30 gold bars by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, ruling that the findings were reasonable and ... Smuggling- Burden of proof - Sufficiency of proof - Specified goods - Confiscation - Adjudication - Delay Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise.2. Delay in initiating proceedings for confiscation of goods.3. Burden of proof regarding smuggled goods.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of the Order Passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise:The petitioner challenged the order dated 31st January 1981 by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which upheld the order dated 30th September 1980 by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad, confiscating 30 gold bars under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The gold bars were seized on 8th February 1956, and the petitioner admitted to possessing them but claimed they were purchased legally from Bombay without any documentation. The Collector concluded that the gold bars were smuggled based on several factors, including the foreign markings on the bars, the petitioner's inconsistent statements, and the lack of purchase documentation. The court held that the Collector's findings were reasonable and supported by evidence, affirming the order of confiscation.2. Delay in Initiating Proceedings for Confiscation of Goods:The petitioner argued that the proceedings initiated in 1980 were beyond a reasonable time from the date of the original judgment in 1971. The court noted that the show cause notice was initially issued on 24th April 1956, and the confiscation order was passed on 7th September 1956. Although the trial court decreed in favor of the petitioner in 1960, the appellate court in 1971 allowed the Customs Authority to adjudge afresh. The court found no unreasonable delay as the proceedings were continuous and pending before the competent authority. The court also referenced the petitioner's own actions, including filing a Miscellaneous Civil Application in 1980, which indicated acknowledgment of ongoing proceedings.3. Burden of Proof Regarding Smuggled Goods:The court referred to the principles established in the case of Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormull, emphasizing that the burden of proof in smuggling cases does not require mathematical precision. The Department must provide prima facie evidence of the goods being smuggled, and the burden shifts to the person concerned to explain the possession of such goods. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide a credible explanation for possessing the gold bars with foreign markings and noted the petitioner's false statements and lack of purchase documentation. The court concluded that the Collector of Customs & Central Excise had provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the finding that the gold bars were smuggled.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, upholding the confiscation order and rejecting the arguments regarding the legality of the order and the alleged delay in proceedings. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that it would not interfere unless the order was illegal, perverse, or devoid of commonsense. The court found that the evidence and circumstances considered by the Collector were sufficient to justify the confiscation of the gold bars as smuggled goods.