Circumstantial evidence and presumption of culpable mental state supported customs liability for concealment of specified goods.

Liability under section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be made out by circumstantial evidence of conscious involvement in concealment or handling of specified goods. The appellant's section 108 statement and recovery evidence showed that silver ingots were concealed in his wadi, which belonged to him; the goods had been declared specified goods and the area was a notified specified area. Because no prior intimation was given under section 11J(2) for keeping the goods there, and the statutory presumption of culpable mental state under section 138A was not rebutted, the surrounding circumstances supported an inference of guilty knowledge, fraudulent evasion, and breach of the statutory prohibition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of customs duty or of the statutory prohibition so as to attract liability under section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The appellant's statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, together with the recovery evidence, established that the silver ingots were concealed in the appellant's wadi and that the wadi belonged to him. The goods had been declared specified goods and the area had been notified as a specified area. Under section 11J(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, acquisition of specified goods in the specified area required prior intimation to the proper officer of the place where the goods were proposed to be kept or stored. No such intimation was given. In addition, section 138A of the Customs Act, 1962 raised a presumption of culpable mental state, which the appellant failed to rebut. The surrounding circumstances were sufficient to infer guilty knowledge and an attempt to evade duty and the statutory prohibition.

Conclusion: The appellant was held guilty under section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the challenge to conviction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability under section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be established by circumstantial evidence showing conscious involvement in concealment or handling of specified goods, aided by the statutory presumption of culpable mental state, where the accused fails to rebut the inference of fraudulent evasion or breach of the statutory prohibition.

---