Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1991 (10) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f years and a fine of Rs. 75,000/- or in default SI for six months under the second count. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner on 6-4-1990 at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Frankfurt by flight No. LH-700. She tried to pass through the green channel. Near the exit gate she was intercepted by R.K. Parasar, Air Customs Officer. On enquiry she denied carrying any contraband articles. She was then asked to pass through the metal detector which indicated presence of some high density metal on her person. The petitioner was then subjected to search by a lady customs officer in presence of two more ladies. The search resulted in the recovery of 100 gold biscuits with foreign markings, weighing 10 tolas each concealed in thre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and etc. v. Abdulkadar Ancalnani Masmani and Others - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 497 (Guj.) = 1985 Crl. L.J. 324 (Vol. 91) and V.P. Sayed Mohmmed v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Calicut, 1973 Crl. L.J. 1551 (Volume 79). I have carefully gone through both these authorities. These are not at all attracted to the facts of the present case. In the first case the recovery was of foreign origin synthetic fabrics from a residential premises under the reasonable belief that the said goods were of foreign origin and as such smuggled goods and liable to confiscation. The recovery was also by the Superintendent of the Customs department. He was held to be not a proper officer and therefore, the seizure could not be said to be covered under Section 123 o....