9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act. 2. Allegation of substitution of the seized gold. 3. Alleged violation of the principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act: The appellant argued that Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act was wrongly applied, as the gold was seized under the Criminal Procedure Code, not the Sea Customs Act. The Court clarified that Section 178-A shifts the burden of proof to the accused when goods are seized under the Act. The Court noted that the Collector of Customs did not apply Section 178-A in his adjudication. Instead, the Collector proceeded under Section 5 of the Land Customs Act and relevant sections of the Sea Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The Court further explained that goods seized under the Land Customs Act, by virtue of Section 9, are considered seized under the Sea Customs Act. The seizure was conducted by a police officer acting as a Land Customs Officer, as per a notification by the Ministry of Finance. Thus, the Court concluded that the seizure was valid under the Sea Customs Act. 2. Allegation of Substitution of the Seized Gold: The appellant claimed that the seized gold was substituted between 13-11-56 and 18-7-58. The Court found no substance in this allegation, stating that the gold was sealed immediately after seizure and deposited in the Raiganj Sub-Treasury with seals intact. The gold was weighed and resealed when taken over by the Superintendent of Land Customs and remained in the Sub-Treasury until transferred to the Custom House Strong Room. The Court noted that neither the appellant nor his lawyer raised the issue of substitution during the initial stages, and they accepted the samples drawn for testing. The Court emphasized that the gold's description, weight, and marks matched the seizure list, making substitution highly improbable. 3. Alleged Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant contended that the adjudication violated natural justice principles, as key witnesses were not produced for cross-examination. The Court dismissed this claim, noting that the appellant had ample opportunity to comment on the evidence, including the statement of Mohendra Narayan Ghosh, which was sent to the appellant for comments. The Court clarified that natural justice requires that evidence be presented to the accused for comments and criticism, not necessarily formal cross-examination. The Court found no violation of natural justice, as the appellant had a fair opportunity to address the evidence against him. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Collector of Customs' order of confiscation and penalty. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the misapplication of Section 178-A, the alleged substitution of gold, or the violation of natural justice principles. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the interim order restraining the disposal of the gold bars was extended for one month.
|
