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 Custom Act offense, dismisses writ petition citing lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>Anil Soni And Another Versus Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And Others</h3> The Court declined to quash the impugned Panchnama under the Custom Act, 1962, citing the establishment of a cognizable offense against the petitioners. ... Smuggling - Gold - petitioners submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as the DRI has not brought any evidence on record that particular alleged gold was the smuggled gold, on which import duties were evaded - HELD THAT:- Perusing the impugned panchnama and also considering that as per impugned panchnama, cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the panchnama or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioners. Petition dismissed. Issues involved: Writ petition seeking to quash an impugned Panchnama under Sections 135(1)(i)(A) & 135(1)(b) of The Custom Act, 1962 and to prevent harassment and arrest of the petitioners.Details of the judgment:1. Allegations of false implication:The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated in the case as no evidence was presented to prove that the gold in question was smuggled. They argued that their jewelry firm operated within legal guidelines, sending jewelry between offices for redesigning with proper documentation. The allegations were labeled as false, frivolous, and baseless, with no credible evidence supporting their involvement in any offense.2. Opposition to quashing of Panchnama:In contrast, counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 opposed the quashing of the Panchnama, claiming that the petitioners were engaged in gold smuggling. They mentioned that summonses were issued to the petitioners for recording statements, which they allegedly avoided. It was argued that the Panchnama revealed a cognizable offense, justifying dismissal of the writ petition.Judicial Decision:After considering the arguments and examining the Panchnama, the Court concluded that a cognizable offense was established against the petitioners. Therefore, the Court declined to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Panchnama or provide interim relief. The petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
