9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t may become applicable, the prosecution must further prove that the goods which were sought to be affected by the order of the Customs Officer were goods of foreign origin and there must be evidence in support of the reasonableness of the belief of the Customs Officer that the goods were smuggled goods. The question now sought to be raised was not agitated in any of the Courts below. 3. The appellant on February 11, 1958, when he was sitting in a third class compartment of the Amritsar-Kalka train standing at Platform No. 5 of the Amritsar Railway Station, was searched by a Customs Official and some bars of gold were found tied round his waist. These gold bars were seized and a recovery memo was prepared. Out of these gold bars, four were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efence to be false and came to the conclusion that the gold was found in possession of the appellant. In the High Court the same plea was taken and was rejected. 6. For the first time in this Court it is contended that before the presumption under S. 178A can be made applicable, it must be proved by the prosecution that the goods were of foreign origin, i.e., had been imported from abroad and only then does the presumption under S. 178A arise which relates only to the question of Customs duty having been paid. In other words the contention comes to this that the prosecution must first prove that the goods in dispute in a particular case have been imported from a foreign country and once that is proved the onus then will be on the person in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessarily prove that the gold is of foreign origin. It might be put on spurious gold which may be of Indian origin. In our opinion, apart from the fact that this question has not been raised, it is quite clear that when S. 178A of the Sea Customs Act provides that when the goods are seized in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods then the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods is on the person from whose possession the goods are seized. The onus is on him to show that the goods are not smuggled that is, not of foreign origin on which duty is not paid. The onus is not on the prosecution to show that the goods are not of Indian origin. That appears to be the view taken in 1962 - 1 SCJ 68 = (AIR 1962 SC 316), where at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
