1990 (1) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sentence imposed upon the respondent who was prosecuted and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a)(ii), 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 2. Respondent on 23-7-1980 was concerned in fraudulent evasion, or at least, an attempt at evasion of customs import duty vis-a-vis 220 bottles containing Shepherd poi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to evade the payment of customs duty. He however contested the valuation made by the Customs authorities. According to the Customs, the property was of the value of Rs. 2,00,000/- and more. The learned Magistrate took into consideration the redemption fine to pay which the respondent had been given an option, to avoid confiscation of the material. Treating this as the valuation for the purpose of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 88,000/-. That apart, no special and adequate reasons warranting a deviation from the minimum sentence had been made out. 5. The Public Prosecutor has been heard. First, it is necessary to remove some confusion in the judgment of the Magistrate. Section 135(1) provides different sentences vis-a-vis the value of the goods. Sub-clause (i) requires a minimum sentence of one year where the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exercise the option of redemption. This was Rs. 88,000/- only. If that be the position, a heavy burden lay upon the complainant to establish that the redemption fine did not represent the real value of the goods. That was not done and the Magistrate was perfectly justified in estimating the value of the goods by the figure fixed by department itself for the redemption fine. Therefore sub-clause (....