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>Interpretation of Customs Act Section 123: Burden of Proof for Seized Goods</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), WB., KOLKATA Versus SUDHIR SAHA</h3> COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), WB., KOLKATA Versus SUDHIR SAHA - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 26 (Cal.) Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding burden of proof for seized goods, applicability to non-notified goods, and establishment of negative proof.Interpretation of Section 123:The judgment discusses the application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, which pertains to the burden of proof in certain cases where goods are seized under the Act. The section specifies that the burden of proving that seized goods are not smuggled lies on the person from whose possession the goods were seized or on the claimed owner. It is highlighted that Section 123 is limited in scope and applies to specific categories of goods as notified by the Central Government.Applicability to Non-Notified Goods:The judgment clarifies that Section 123 does not apply to non-notified goods, such as the betel-nuts seized in the present case. It emphasizes that the burden of proof in such cases follows the general rule of evidence, where the burden lies on the party making the allegation. The prosecution bears the burden in penal provisions, and Section 123 carves out an exception for specified goods, excluding non-notified items.Establishment of Negative Proof:Regarding the seized betel-nuts of foreign origin in the case, the judgment notes that the burden of proof shifts to the department due to the goods not being notified under Section 123. It is emphasized that the burden of proving smuggled goods rests on the prosecution, especially when the alleged owner retracts their statement. The judgment distinguishes previous cases cited, emphasizing the specific application of Section 123 to notified goods and the absence of its applicability to non-notified items.Conclusion:The judgment concludes that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) correctly addressed the legal point at hand, finding no legal issue to be involved in the case. Consequently, the application is dismissed without costs, and all parties are directed to act on a signed copy of the dictated order.
TaxTMI 