Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1998 (3) TMI 482 - AT - Customs

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Judgment confirms smuggled goods, penalties upheld for some defendants, set aside for others due to lack of evidence. The judgment confirmed the seized goods as smuggled, including gold biscuits and ornaments. Penalties were upheld for Shri Bhoore Khan and Shri Achar Khan ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Judgment confirms smuggled goods, penalties upheld for some defendants, set aside for others due to lack of evidence.

                            The judgment confirmed the seized goods as smuggled, including gold biscuits and ornaments. Penalties were upheld for Shri Bhoore Khan and Shri Achar Khan Rajad, reduced for Shri Pirana Khan, and set aside for Shri Achar (S/o Samabe), Shri Nihal, and Shri Gulia due to insufficient evidence. Retractions by accused were deemed unreliable, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigations in smuggling cases.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Legitimacy of the seized goods as smuggled goods.
                            2. Involvement of various individuals in the smuggling activities.
                            3. Validity of retractions made by the accused.
                            4. Appropriate penalties imposed on the individuals involved.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Legitimacy of the Seized Goods as Smuggled Goods:

                            The judgment confirms that the seized goods, including 252 F.M. Gold Biscuits, 10 pcs of Gold, Gold ornaments, Silver ornaments, and other miscellaneous goods, were indeed smuggled. The goods were intercepted during a joint operation by Customs and BSF on 29-12-1993. The panchnama and mahazar clearly established that the seized goods were foreign-marked smuggled gold. There was no dispute regarding the goods being foreign-marked and smuggled.

                            2. Involvement of Various Individuals in the Smuggling Activities:

                            - Shri Bhoore Khan: The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, from Shri Bhoore Khan revealed that he was apprehended while smuggling the goods from Pakistan. His statements from 31-12-1993, 1-1-1994, and 2-1-1994 confirmed his involvement in the smuggling activities. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on him was confirmed as just and proper considering the value of the goods.

                            - Shri Nihal: The evidence against Shri Nihal was found insufficient. His statements denied any involvement, and there was no direct evidence linking him to the smuggling activities. The statements of other accused did not conclusively implicate him. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on him was set aside.

                            - Shri Achar Khan Rajad: He admitted to being the recipient of the smuggled goods. The carrier, Shri Bhoore Khan, identified him, and his involvement was confirmed. The penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on him was confirmed despite being less than expected.

                            - Shri Pirana Khan: His own confessional statement admitted his involvement in smuggling activities. He was to receive the gold and had coordinated with his cousin in Pakistan to arrange the gold. The penalty imposed on him was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh from Rs. 2 lakhs.

                            - Shri Murad and Shri Hayat: Identified by Shri Bhoore Khan as his accomplices, they were involved in smuggling the gold from Pakistan. The penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each imposed on them were confirmed, and no appeals were filed by them.

                            - Shri Achar (S/o Samabe) and Shri Gulia: There was no direct evidence implicating them in the smuggling activities. The statements against them were not self-implicatory, and the department failed to record their statements. Therefore, the penalties imposed on them were set aside.

                            3. Validity of Retractions Made by the Accused:

                            The retractions made by the accused were considered an afterthought and were not supported by any evidence. The retraction by Shri Bhoore Khan after one and a half years was deemed unreliable. The telegram sent by the father of Nihal was not considered a valid retraction. The statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, were held to be correct and reliable.

                            4. Appropriate Penalties Imposed on the Individuals Involved:

                            The penalties imposed on the individuals were reviewed based on their involvement and the evidence available. The penalties on Shri Bhoore Khan and Shri Achar Khan Rajad were confirmed. The penalty on Shri Pirana Khan was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. The penalties on Shri Achar (S/o Samabe), Shri Nihal, and Shri Gulia were set aside due to insufficient evidence.

                            Conclusion:

                            The appeals were disposed of with the penalties against Shri Achar (S/o Samabe), Shri Nihal, and Shri Gulia set aside. The penalty against Shri Pirana Khan was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh, while the penalties against Shri Bhoore Khan and Shri Achar Khan Rajad were confirmed. The judgment emphasized the need for thorough investigation to trace the real recipients and smugglers involved in such cases.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found