9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of confiscation of diamonds by the Collector of Customs under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act regarding the reasonable belief for invoking the provision. 3. Burden of proof on the petitioner to establish that the seized goods were not contraband. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, a dealer in diamonds, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of confiscation of 97 pieces of diamonds by the Collector of Customs. The petitioner claimed to be a broker who purchased diamonds from various dealers for resale. However, he failed to produce any vouchers or evidence to support his claim of legitimate purchase. The Customs officials intercepted the petitioner and his friend when the friend returned the diamonds after spotting the officials. Despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner could not produce any evidence of his alleged purchases or the sellers. The Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice, and the petitioner admitted to not having proper records to establish the legality of the diamonds. The main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was the lack of material to invoke Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act and shifting the burden of proof to the Department. The judgment emphasized the distinction between 'reasonable belief' and 'suspicion,' highlighting that a reasonable belief must be based on facts and circumstances, not mere conjecture. Referring to a Bombay High Court decision, the judgment explained that a belief requires a solid foundation, unlike a suspicion. The legislative intent behind requiring a 'reasonable belief' was to prevent harassment of innocent individuals by authorities. The judgment agreed with the interpretation of 'reasonable belief' by the Bombay High Court and stressed that each case's facts and circumstances determine what constitutes a reasonable belief. It rejected the argument that a pre-existing information must be available to the seizing officer, stating that an officer can form a reasonable belief based on the interception and interrogation of the suspect. In this case, the conduct of the petitioner and his friend, along with their immediate statements, justified the customs officials' reasonable belief that the diamonds were smuggled goods. Consequently, Section 178A of the Act was deemed properly invoked, and the petitioner failed to prove the legitimacy of his diamond acquisitions. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioner, with the rule Nisi discharged.
|
