Case Law Details
UOI Vs Imtiaz Iqbal Pothiwala (Bombay High Court)
We are of the view that in the absence of evidence in the form of regular Books of Account, Registration under the Income Tax and Sales Tax, etc., cannot ispofacto lead to the conclusion that the seized gold bars, are smuggled gold bars. These may lead to proceedings for breaches of other Acts but it does not follow from it that the gold bars are smuggled goods. In fact, if a person in possession of the stolen gold is able to establish that it had come into India after a proper declaration and compliance of the Act, no confiscation under the Act, can arise. Proceedings under the Indian Penal Code may be initiated by the police for theft, but it would not by reason of theft become smuggled goods. Moreover, smuggling as defined under Section 2 (39) of the Act, is an act or omission which will render goods liable to confiscation under Sections 111 of the Act for import and 113 of the Act for exports. On reading of Sections 111 and 113 of the Act, not keeping proper books of accounts or not being registered with the Income Tax and/or Sales Tax Authorities, is not an omission which renders the good liable for confiscation i.e. smuggled goods.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
This Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) challenges the order dated 3rd June, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).
2 This Appeal was admitted on 28th June, 2007 on the following substantial questions of law:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
