Knowing possession of foreign goods liable to confiscation sustained customs conviction on concurrent findings

Possession of foreign cloth in a person's house, coupled with an unexplained and rejected claim of ignorance, was treated as sufficient to show knowing custody of goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The evidence supported the conclusion that the goods were foreign goods kept without permit or duty payment, attracting confiscation under the customs and import control provisions and satisfying the ingredients of Section 135(1)(b)(i). On those facts, the concurrent findings were not interfered with in revision, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's conviction under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for keeping foreign goods liable to confiscation was liable to be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The evidence showed that 30 gunny bags of foreign cloth were found in the petitioner's house, and the explanation that he was unaware of their contents was rejected. The circumstances supported knowledge that the goods were foreign goods kept without permit or duty payment, attracting liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. On those facts, the ingredients of Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were made out, and no ground existed to disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld and the revision was dismissed.

---