2021 (2) TMI 260 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Release of three gold bars seized - petitioner urges that there was no intent on the part of the petitioner to smuggle anything - HELD THAT - It is his hard-earned money and his marriage is due in the month of April, 2021. He, therefore, had brought this. He has urged that the process of confiscation is not as yet over and the documentary evidences which have been adduced, would need to be carefully examined by the Authority concerned before it finally adjudicates the matter, and therefore, seeks directions for the Authority concerned to apply its mind and decide the same in accordance with law. He does not press for release of the gold bars in the present petition and urges that the legal recourse which is available to him, should be efficacious. Noticing the fact that Section 123 of the Act provides for burden of proof where the goods are seized and when there is reasonable belief on the part of the Authority that they are smuggled goods, burden of proving that they are not, would be on a person from whose possession the goods were seized. The discharge of the burden and the appreciation of such evidence is function of the Quasi Judicial Authority and in the instant case, we have no doubt that the same shall be done as required under law by discharging all obligations as contemplated under the Act and other laws in existence. This petition being premature, the Court has chosen not to enter into the same and is being disposed of, without entering into the merits of the matter. The Authority concerned since is already seized with the matter, the petitioner shall be at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if it so choses. The same shall be decided in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Articles 226 and 227 for release of seized gold bars by Custom Authority. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Premature petition disposal without entering into merits.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Sales Executive with a company in Bahrain, had three gold bars seized by Custom Authority upon arrival from Dubai to Ahmedabad. The seizure was under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act after a personal search at the airport. The petitioner later approached the Authority with representations and evidence to release the gold bars, citing lack of legal knowledge for not paying the customs duty. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay the duty and clarified that there was no intent to smuggle the gold bars, which were purchased with hard-earned money for an upcoming marriage.

The Court noted Section 123 of the Act places the burden of proof on the person from whom the goods were seized to show they are not smuggled. It emphasized that the Quasi Judicial Authority must discharge its obligations under the law and carefully examine the evidence presented before adjudicating the matter. The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, considering it premature as the Authority was already seized with the matter. The petitioner was granted the liberty to submit additional evidence if desired, with assurance that the matter would be decided in accordance with the law. The disposal of the petition was stated not to hinder the petitioner's legal recourse or the Authority's adjudication process.

In conclusion, the petition seeking release of the gold bars was disposed of without entering into the merits of the case. The Court emphasized the importance of the Authority's examination of evidence and adherence to legal procedures under the Customs Act. The petitioner was allowed to provide further evidence, maintaining the right to pursue legal remedies.