1985 (5) TMI 60 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Search and Seizure: The customs officers searched the accused's godown and found 776 dozens of table-tennis balls of Chinese origin. The accused failed to provide a legitimate invoice and refused to cooperate, leading to the seizure of the goods worth about Rs. 14,000.

2. Verification and Investigation: The customs department discovered that the supplier mentioned in the invoice was a fictitious firm, leading to further interrogation of the accused. The accused initially claimed ignorance about the supplier and later changed his statement, creating suspicion regarding the source of the goods.

3. Adjudication and Prosecution: After issuing a show cause notice and receiving a reply, the Assistant Collector confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty. Subsequently, a prosecution was initiated under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.

4. Trial Proceedings: During the trial, witnesses from the customs department testified, and the accused admitted to the possession of the goods but provided inconsistent statements. The lower court acquitted the accused, stating that mere possession of foreign goods was not an offense.

5. Legal Interpretation: The key issue revolved around whether the goods seized were prohibited under Section 111(c) of the Customs Act and if the accused had valid explanations for possession. The court analyzed the provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

6. Judgment and Appeal: The court found the lower court's reasoning unsustainable, emphasizing that possession of banned goods shifts the burden of proof to the accused. The court highlighted the error in the lower court's interpretation of the law and convicted the accused, imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000 in lieu of imprisonment.

7. Conclusion: The judgment underscored the importance of proving lawful possession of prohibited goods and the shifting burden of proof on the accused in customs offenses. The court upheld the appeal, setting aside the acquittal and convicting the respondent based on the evidence presented during the trial.