Commissioner of Customs Vs Mohammed Ali Jinnah (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that confiscation of crude gold bar justified as source of income for having purchased gold bar not proved. Thus, burden of proof u/s. 123 of the Customs Act not discharged.
Facts- Based on intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted the Respondent and seized two crude gold bars being smuggled golds bars of foreign origin. The seized gold bars appeared to have been concealed and smuggled into India from Srilanka without declaring with the Customs Department with an intention to avoid payment of appropriate customs duties and therefore were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, a mahazar was drawn on 23.01.2017.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai vide Order dated 08.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.1818 of 2017 confirmed that the seized crude gold bars did not have any foreign markings. Necessary certificate was issued by the Magistrate to that effect under Section 110 (1B) and Section 110 (1C) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Conclusion- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India Vs. Shyams under”, AIR 1994 SC 485, held that the persons from whom the contraband articles were seized had not satisfactorily discharged the burden of proof cast on them as required by Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 that they are not smuggled.
