9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d bars were seized under reasonable belief that they were liable to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The documents were seized believing their prospective relevance to the subsequent proceedings. 59 pcs of Half Guinea (Queen Victoria), one gold bar weighing 10 tolas bearing foreign markings and Rs. 91,500/- in Indian currency were recovered from his residence. Out of 59 pcs of half guinea, 37 pcs were released on the basis of admissibility of porsoncon of 50 gms to each member of the family and the balance of 22 pcs half guinea weighing 175.05 gm. including the gold bar and the Indian currency were seized. Further, a sum of Rs. 27,800 was also recovered and seized from his guddy. Prior to search of his residence Shri Kashi Prasad Saraff made a written statement before Customs Officers in presence of independent witnesses that he had no gold in his possession which he intended to declare or deposit with the Reserve Bank of India or Gold Control authority. The aforesaid goods recovered from the residence and the guddy were thereafter seized in the reasonable belief that those were smuggled and were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant was not considered in the adjudication order which vitiates the order. In this connection he relied on the following decision : AIR 1976 SC1785. 6. He also stated that foreign markings are heresay offence. He also pointed out that the Member, Central Board of Excise Customs has casually dealt with the matter and the same is not a speaking order. He also pointed out that confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty is a quasi-criminal proceedings. Hence, the prosecution must proof the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. In this connection, he relied on the decision reported in 1991 (1) SCC 445. He also pointed out that the same goods were confiscated under the provisions of Defence of India Rules, 1962 and the same is illegal. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. The learned J.D.R. Shri B.B. Sarkar pointed out that there were materials to show that the goods were seized under a reasonable belief. Hence, the burden has shifted to the appellant to prove that these are not smuggled goods. That is not discharged by the appellant. He also drew our attention to the impugned orders and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 8. We have co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to form a reasonable belief. See also M.A. Rasheed Ors. v. State of Kerala [AIR 1974 SC 2249] and The Barium Chemicals Ltd. Anr. v.The Company Law Board Ors. [1966 Suppl. SCR 311]. It must be reiterated that the conclusions arrived at by the fact-finding bodies, the Tribunal or the statutory authorities, on the facts, found that cumulative effect or preponderance of evidence cannot be interfered with where the fact-finding body or authority has acted reasonably upon the view which can be taken by any reasonable man. Courts will be reluctant to interfere in such a situation. Where, however, the conclusions of the fact-finding authority are based on no evidence then the question of law arises and that may be looked into by the Courts but in the instant case the facts are entirely different. See the principles enunciated by this Court in M/s. Mehta Parikh Co. v. C.I.T., Bombay [1956 SCR 626]. The same view was expressed by this Court in Pukhraj v. D.R. Kohli [1962 Suppl. 3 SCR 866] 1984 ECR 121 where while dealing with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1878, this Court held that Section 178 of the said Act imposed the onus of proof that the gold was not smuggled, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as stated above. That being so, the burden has shifted on to the appellants to show that these are not smuggled gold. The facts of this case certainly warrants the formation of a reasonable belief. In any case, once it is held that there was material relevant and germane, the sufficiency of such material is not open to judicial review. 12. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the burden having shifted on to the appellant, it was for the appellant to prove that these are not smuggled gold. The appellant has not produced any evidence in this regard. These facts were discussed in the Order-in-Original which was upheld by the learned Board. We find no material to hold that these facts were not discussed in the Order-in-Original. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned Advocate reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785 do not apply to the facts of this case. It was contended before us that in all such cases there must be fairness at the beginning, fairness during the proceedings and fairness in the conclusion. In this regard, the learned Advocate relied on the decision reported in AIR 1985 Bom. 39. In this case, after the seizure of the goods, on a reasonable belief, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
