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 affirms confiscation of silver bars under Customs Act. Evidence supports export purpose. Petition dismissed.</h1> <h3>MANILAL BHANABHAI PATEL Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> MANILAL BHANABHAI PATEL Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 99 (Guj.) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the confiscation order u/s 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Legality of the penalty imposed u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Whether the goods were brought near the coast for the purpose of being exported.Summary:1. Legality of the Confiscation Order u/s 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962:The petitioner challenged the confiscation of 90 silver bars weighing 2770.900 kgs by the Additional Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, and the subsequent confirmation by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The petitioner argued that the department failed to establish the material ingredients of Section 113(c) of the Customs Act. The court referred to the facts relied upon by the Additional Collector, including the recovery of silver bars from Manibhai Desai's house and the statements of involved parties. The court concluded that the phrase 'near the coast of India' should be interpreted in a relative sense, and village Tukwada, being 10 km from Daman, satisfied the requirement of being near the coast. The court upheld the Additional Collector's finding that the silver was brought for the purpose of being exported.2. Legality of the Penalty Imposed u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:The petitioner was also penalized Rs. 2 lacs u/s 114 of the Customs Act. The court noted the petitioner's failure to produce any transport documents or evidence to support his claim that the silver was being transported to Navsari due to a truck breakdown. The court held that the Additional Collector's reliance on the statements of Manibhai Desai and Bhagwanji Desai, along with the petitioner's conduct of absconding for two months, justified the imposition of the penalty.3. Whether the Goods Were Brought Near the Coast for the Purpose of Being Exported:The petitioner contended that the goods were not brought near the coast for the purpose of being exported and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Malkiat Singh v. The State of Punjab. The court distinguished this case by referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub and Others, which clarified that the intention to export could be inferred from circumstantial evidence. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions, including the clandestine manner of storing the silver and the lack of legitimate transport documents, indicated an intention to export the silver illegally.Conclusion:The court found no substance in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the orders of the Additional Collector and the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The petition was rejected, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
