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>Supreme Court Upholds Confiscation of Gold & Electronics under Customs Law</h1> <h3>SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the confiscation of gold, FAX machine, and video camera under the Customs Duty Act and FERA, dismissing the Special Leave ... Natural Justice - Seized goods - Evidence Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the confiscation of gold, FAX machine, and video camera under the Customs Duty Act and FERA, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the exemption of jewellery under the Rules, and the legality of the orders passed by the authority.Confiscation of Goods:The appellate authority referred the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration, resulting in the confiscation of gold, FAX machine, and video camera along with a compounding fee. The orders were confirmed on appeal and revision. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was summarily dismissed. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the confiscation order, as the petitioner's admission of purchasing and bringing the gold without permission violated the Customs Duty Act and FERA.Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses:The petitioner contended that he was entitled to cross-examine the Panch witnesses and the Seizing Officer, as the recovery of goods was made in contravention of FERA and Customs Duty Act. However, the Court held that the confession made by the petitioner, admitting to purchasing and converting gold, bound him. Despite the retraction of the confession, the admission remained valid, and there was no requirement to call Panch witnesses for examination and cross-examination.Exemption of Jewellery:The petitioner argued that as a Kara, a symbol of religious wear by the Sikh community, the jewellery should be exempted from confiscation under the Rules. However, since the petitioner admitted to purchasing and using the gold to make the Kara, he was not entitled to the benefit of exemption. The Court found no illegality in the authority's decision not to exempt the Kara from confiscation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the orders of confiscation and finding no grounds for interference. The Court held that the petitioner's admission of purchasing and bringing the gold without permission, along with the lack of necessity to cross-examine witnesses, justified the confiscation and denial of exemption for the Kara.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
