Knowledge of liable-to-confiscation foreign goods upheld on recovery from residence and rejection of innocent possession defence.

Knowingly keeping foreign goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act was held proved where foreign clothes were recovered in bulk from the accused's residence, his explanation of ignorance was rejected, and there was no permit or duty payment. The court found that these facts supported the inference that he knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent trial and appellate findings, the conviction and sentence were upheld in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for knowingly keeping foreign goods liable to confiscation was sustainable.

Analysis: Foreign clothes were recovered from the accused's house in 30 gunny bags, and the accused's explanation that he was unaware of their contents was rejected. The presence of a large quantity of foreign goods at his residence, together with the absence of any permit or payment of duty, supported the conclusion that he knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs law. The concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court showed no perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference in revision.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were upheld, and the revision was decided against the accused.

---