9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act. 2. Contravention of principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act: The petitioner challenged the applicability of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, arguing that the statutory presumption under this section could not be drawn against him. Section 178A places the burden of proof on the person from whose possession the goods were seized to prove that they are not smuggled goods. The court clarified that the reasonable belief of the Customs Officer must be entertained either before or at the time of seizure. It was held that the circumstances leading to the seizure, including the secret information about Sohan Lal's activities and his suspicious behavior, provided adequate grounds for the customs authorities to entertain a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled. The court found that the customs authorities had a reasonable belief at the time of the seizure, which was confirmed by Sohan Lal's statement. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the presumption under Section 178A could only be raised against Sohan Lal and not against the petitioner, citing the Supreme Court's observation in Babulal Amthalal Mehta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, which allows the presumption to be applied to all persons connected with the smuggled goods. Therefore, the court held that the presumption under Section 178A was rightly applied, and the petitioner failed to discharge the onus placed on him. 2. Contravention of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner contended that the customs authorities collected evidence behind his back, violating the principles of natural justice. However, the court found no merit in this contention. The main grievance was against the admissibility of Sohan Lal's statement, which was repelled by both the Collector and the Board of Revenue. The petitioner did not raise any other grievance about evidence being collected behind his back before the customs authorities or in the writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner had not made any grievance about this issue before the Board of Revenue in appeal, nor was it discussed in the Board's order or the Central Government's impugned order. The court rejected the petitioner's contention, finding it vague and misconceived, and noted that the Collector of Customs denied on oath that any material was gathered behind the petitioner's back. The court concluded that there was no substance in this contention and rejected it. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court holding that the presumption under Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act was rightly applied, and the petitioner failed to discharge the onus placed on him. The court also found no contravention of the principles of natural justice in the customs authorities' proceedings. The parties were left to bear their respective costs.
|
