2018 (8) TMI 186 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - import of contraband items - unclaimed goods - though the said goods landed in India, none came forwarded to claim the said goods - investigation revealed that, the goods so seized were consigned to accused no.1 purporting to be under the T.R. facility and as such he was directed to remain present before the Superintendent of Customs , C.I.U., M & P Wing, Bombay with all the relevant papers and documents relating to the consignment goods in his name from Dubai - Held that - The evidence of the P.W.3 has proved the fact that goods have been removed on 7th February, 1985 and P.W.4 in evidence asserted that these goods were deposited in the Customs Godown on 5th March, 1985. He had also produced the Register on Record. The question, that arises is, with whom the subject goods were lying between 7th February, 1985 to 5th March, 1988. The prosecution has neither answered this issue, nor clarified it by placing on record, evidence of any kind - The prosecution has not explained this anomaly, either in evidence or otherwise. Nobody knows who was in the custody of the subject goods from 7th February, 1985 till 5th March, 1985. There are no reasons to hold that the trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the evidence and recording the order of acquittal against accused nos.1 and 3 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Customs Act, 1962 and Indian Penal Code.
2. Allegations of conspiracy to import contraband goods.
3. Evidence regarding seized goods and their custody.

Analysis:
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs filed an appeal against the acquittal of accused nos. 1 and 3 under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and other relevant provisions. The appeal was based on the import of goods of foreign origin by accused no. 1 under the Transfer of Residence (T & R) facility, where unclaimed packages containing contraband goods were seized by Customs officers. The total value of the seized goods was &8377; 7,81,540. The accused were charged with conspiracy to import contraband goods in violation of import regulations and customs laws.

2. The complaint alleged that accused no. 1 imported goods consigned to accused no. 2 under the T.R. facility, and accused no. 3 was involved in receiving the goods after customs clearance. The prosecution contended that all accused conspired to import the goods illegally, leading to charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The trial court acquitted accused nos. 1 and 3 of all charges.

3. The evidence presented during the trial highlighted discrepancies regarding the custody of the seized goods between February 7, 1985, and March 5, 1988. Witness testimonies indicated that the goods were removed from Indira Dock to Customs Warehouse on different dates, raising questions about the custody and examination of the goods during this period. The prosecution failed to clarify these discrepancies and provide evidence regarding the custody of the goods, leading to uncertainties about the handling of the seized items. The court concluded that the trial court's acquittal of accused nos. 1 and 3 was reasonable based on the evidence presented and dismissed the appeal accordingly.