2014 (7) TMI 1139 - HC - Customs

False declaration Evasion of Duty Vide impugned judgment respondent stood acquitted under Section 132 and Section 135(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962 Held that - Accused was intercepted by PW-1 and was asked whether he had any gold or silver items to which he again replied in negative though Metal detector gave positive indication PW-2 was formal witness and had served summons to accused and had recorded his statement under Section 108 This statement was in handwriting of respondent himself and by no stretch of imagination can it be said to be coerced statement as it was running into six pages where certain personal information was disclosed Defence of respondent that he was eager to pay duty but was not allowed to do so was wholly mala fide Conviction order thus was justified Sentence already undergone by respondent, would be sentence to be suffered by him Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Sections 132 & 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Discrepancy in judgments of Magistrate and Sessions Judge - Allegations of false implication - Failure to declare dutiable items - Confiscation of gold items - Examination of witnesses - Defence plea of false implication - Discrepancy regarding metal detector - Conviction under Sections 132 & 135(1)(a) - Sentencing considerations.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Delhi High Court challenged the acquittal of the respondent under Sections 132 & 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, following conflicting judgments by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge. The case involved the respondent, an NRI, arriving at the IGI airport with undeclared gold items, leading to his apprehension by a Custom Officer. The respondent failed to provide any documents for the gold items found in his possession, resulting in their confiscation. The prosecution presented witnesses, including the Custom Officer and a Customs Superintendent, who testified to the events and the recovery of the gold items. The respondent's defense claimed false implication, alleging that he attempted to declare the gold but was unfairly targeted by the Custom Department. The Court noted discrepancies in the respondent's statements and the evidence presented, particularly regarding the declaration of dutiable goods on a Custom form. The respondent's defense was found to be inconsistent with the established facts, leading to a rejection of the false implication claim.

The Court analyzed the witness testimonies and the evidence, emphasizing the significance of the Custom declaration form signed by the respondent, which contradicted his defense's assertions. The respondent's attempt to dispute the authenticity of the form was dismissed as an afterthought, lacking credibility. Additionally, the Court addressed the respondent's claim regarding the metal detector's absence, with the Custom Officer's testimony refuting such a claim. The Court found the respondent's defense lacking merit and upheld the Magistrate's conviction under Sections 132 & 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Regarding sentencing considerations, the Court referred to precedents where sentences were reduced based on specific circumstances. Considering the respondent's partial incarceration and payment of fines, the Court determined that the period already served would suffice as the sentence, with an additional fine imposed. Citing past cases where sentences were adjusted for various reasons, the Court balanced the respondent's circumstances and imposed a fine along with the already served sentence. The appeal was disposed of with the respondent required to pay the additional fine within a specified period to avoid further imprisonment.