TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (12) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Courts, and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Kadirvel for Mr. S. Ganesan, Advocate for the petitioner and Respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate, the Court made the following order :- This criminal revision case is filed by the accused. He has been convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that they were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and as such he is punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The accused denied the charge. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny bags cannot be accepted. Hence, it is clear that he was aware that foreign goods had been brought to his house. As pointed out by the Court below, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that there was any permit in respect of the said foreign goods, or any duty had been paid for them. The accused should have known that they are liable for confiscation. In these circumstances under S....