Context and Background
The Telangana High Court recently upheld the seizure of gold bars worth over Rs 2.3 crore by Customs officials at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport in Hyderabad. The petitioners, who had arrived from Bangkok, contested the seizure, claiming that the gold was legally purchased and intended to be declared upon arrival. This case highlights significant legal interpretations under the Customs Act, particularly regarding the burden of proof in cases of suspected smuggling.
Legal Framework: The Customs Act
The Customs Act, specifically Section 123, places the burden of proof on the individual found in possession of dutiable or prohibited goods. This section requires that the possessor must demonstrate that the goods are not meant for smuggling. The Act's intent is to streamline enforcement and reduce the burden on authorities to prove intent in cases where prohibited goods are discovered.
The Court's Reasoning
The Division Bench, comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and N. Tukaramji, emphasized that the burden of proof lay heavily on the petitioners due to several factors. Firstly, the petitioners were unable to produce an invoice for the gold. Additionally, they did not possess the requisite customs fee and failed to declare the gold at customs, opting instead for the green channel, which is designated for travelers with nothing to declare. The substantial quantity of gold—over 3.7 kilograms—further heightened the suspicion of smuggling, as such an amount is typically not for personal use.
Petitioners' Defense and Court's Evaluation
The petitioners argued that they had intended to declare the gold but were intercepted before they could do so. However, their choice to use the green channel suggested an attempt to evade customs duties and procedures. The Court found this behavior indicative of an intent to smuggle, thus undermining their defense.
Moreover, the petitioners' claim of potentially re-exporting the gold did not hold up. The Court noted that re-export under Section 80 of the Customs Act requires a prior declaration under Section 77, which the petitioners failed to make. This failure to comply with procedural requirements further weakened their case.
Confiscation and Disposal of Seized Gold
The Court also addressed the issue of confiscation and disposal. Under Central Government notification 31/1986, gold is listed as an item that can be disposed of immediately after seizure due to its marketability. Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act supports this provision. Given the circumstances of the seizure—lack of declaration, substantial quantity, and attempt to bypass customs—the Court found the confiscation justified. The petitioners did not contest the potential confiscation but focused on challenging the initial seizure, which the Court upheld.
Interrogation and Findings
During interrogation, the petitioners admitted that the gold was not purchased by them but given by unknown persons in Bangkok to be handed over to unknown individuals in Hyderabad. This admission provided clear evidence of an intention to smuggle the gold into India, reinforcing the Customs officials' actions.
Conclusion and Implications
In dismissing the writs, the Court concluded that the actions of the Customs officials were neither illegal nor arbitrary. The decision underscores the stringent measures under the Customs Act to combat smuggling and the heavy burden of proof placed on individuals found in possession of dutiable or prohibited goods. This ruling serves as a precedent, emphasizing that procedural compliance and transparency are paramount in international travel and trade.
Case Information:
- Case Title: Shaik Mohammed Sadiq vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs & batch
- Case No: WP 28523 of 2023 & others
Counsel:
- For Petitioners: Advocate N. Krishna Sumanth
- For Respondents: Dominic Fernandes, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC
This case highlights the legal intricacies involved in enforcing the Customs Act and the critical role of burden of proof in adjudicating smuggling charges. The Telangana High Court's decision reinforces the necessity for travelers to adhere strictly to customs regulations and the severe consequences of attempting to circumvent these laws.
.jpeg)
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.