1942 (1) TMI 1 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against acquittal under S. 417, Criminal P. C.
- Allegations of abetting cheating Customs Department.
- Discrepancy in prices of imported goods.
- Admissibility of seized documents as evidence.
- Interpretation of 'real value' under Sea Customs Act.
- Failure to prove false declaration of real value.
- Lack of evidence to establish cheating offense.

Analysis:

The judgment involves an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, a manager of a firm, on charges of abetting cheating the Customs Department by causing false declarations of the real value of imported goods. The prosecution's case centered on discrepancies in prices of goods imported from Japan, where the respondent agreed to pay increased prices but submitted invoices at lower costs to the customs. The defense argued that seized documents were inadmissible and did not establish the alleged offenses. The court examined the Sea Customs Act's definition of 'real value' under S. 30, emphasizing the need to prove that the 'whole sale cash price' was not ascertainable to apply S. 30(b) over S. 30(a.

The judgment highlighted the prosecution's failure to prove that the 'real value' of the goods imported could not be ascertained under S. 30(a) or that the respondent caused a false declaration of the real value. It was noted that S. 30(b) does not mandate the cost at which specific goods were delivered but the cost at which goods of the same kind and quality could be delivered. The court stressed the necessity of demonstrating that goods of similar kind could not be imported at a lower price, which the prosecution failed to establish.

The court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the respondent's involvement in making a false declaration of the real value of goods, essential for establishing the offense of cheating. Despite assuming the prosecution's contentions as true, the judgment found no evidence of cheating. Consequently, the respondent was rightfully acquitted, and the appeal was dismissed. The judgment underscored the prosecution's burden to establish the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case.