2006 (1) TMI 141 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act to seized goods transferred from another authority.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 123 of the Act
The case involved the seizure of gold biscuit pieces by the Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, which were later handed over to the Customs authority. The main contention was whether the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Act, regarding seized goods believed to be smuggled, applies in this scenario. The Customs authority argued that the burden of proof lies on the person from whose custody the goods were seized. However, the Tribunal, based on various decisions, held that since the initial seizure was by a different authority, Section 123 did not apply. The High Court analyzed Section 123, emphasizing that it applies to goods seized under the Act. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted that when goods are seized by another authority and transferred to Customs, it does not constitute a seizure under the Act, thus not triggering the burden of proof under Section 123.

Judgment:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the seizure by the Special Police Establishment Lokayukta did not amount to a seizure under the Customs Act. Therefore, the burden of proof under Section 123 was not applicable in this case. The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the view taken by the Tribunal was legally sound and did not warrant interference.