AMBA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1960-10-9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 03,1960

AMBA LAL Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS VS. D BHOORMALL [LAWS(SC)-1974-4-28] [DISTINGUISHED]
KELPUNJ ENTERPRISES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1976-5-4] [REFERRED]
RENU SHARMA VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(DLH)-1991-10-47] [REFERRED]
C D MINING AND EXPORT CO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1992-5-60] [REFERRED]
SURINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-134] [REFERRED TO]
JETHALAL NANALAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1967-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
NATVARLAL C SHAH FOOD INSPECTOR AHMEDABAD VS. PRABHATBHAI PUNJABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-1980-3-24] [REFERRED]
MAHAVIR EXPORTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2005-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
RASHEED ABDULLAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1977-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
AGARWAL TRADING CORPORATION VS. ASST COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1963-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
MANGALA PROSAD VS. V J MANERIKAR [LAWS(CAL)-1964-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
TEJMAN VS. D P ANAND [LAWS(CAL)-1964-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
DULICHAND KHERIA VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1964-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
KANUNGO AND CO VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1964-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
MANICKLAL SEN VS. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1964-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS. SOHANLAL BAHL [LAWS(CAL)-1964-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS. KANUNGO [LAWS(CAL)-1965-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
JAWHAR KNITTING MILLS VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1965-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CALCUTTA VS. ANWAR ALI [LAWS(CAL)-1966-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMLAL SEN PRIVATE LTD VS. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1966-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
CHARANDAS MALHOTRA VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND SUPERINTENDENT PREVENTIVE SERVICE [LAWS(CAL)-1967-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
N G ROY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1967-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
SHEW BHAGWAN GOANKA VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1969-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHEW BHAGWAN GOENKA VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1969-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
MALKHANSINGH NIRPATSINGH VS. INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE P I [LAWS(MPH)-1961-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
EAST JAMURIA CO P LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1977-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
C SAMPATH KUMAR VS. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE MADRAS [LAWS(SC)-1997-9-41] [RELIED ON]
HIRA H ADVANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1969-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
DEVIKADEVI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1982-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
MAGANLAL GULABCHAND SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1991-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS. H S MEHRA [LAWS(MAD)-1963-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
MARKOS ARANAOUTAKIS VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(KER)-1971-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN VS. MARKOSE ARNAEUTAKIS S T SPEEDWAY COCHIN [LAWS(KER)-1972-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
BANSHIDHAR BAIJNATH JALAN SEVA TRUST VS. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-1991-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE VS. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2000-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
DY DIRECTOR E D MADRAS VS. P MANSOOR MOHAMED ALI JINNAH [LAWS(MAD)-1988-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. P R METRANI HUF [LAWS(KAR)-2001-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. LAXMANSINGH JALAMSINGH [LAWS(BOM)-1970-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. OM PARKASH RAM DASS KHATRI [LAWS(P&H)-1963-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPALDAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
RASHID GAFOOR PARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1982-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
L.R. MELWANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1966-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
H.R. SYIEM VS. P.S. LULLA [LAWS(BOM)-1969-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
YUSUF ABDULLA PATEL VS. R.N. SHUKLA [LAWS(BOM)-1969-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE-PRESIDENT RASILABEN H. RATHOD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD [LAWS(CE)-2007-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAT GUPTA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2001-4-202] [REFERRED TO]
SAYEED AHAMED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2005-3-118] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2012-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHA D. KANNAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD-II [LAWS(CE)-2005-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
MOMIN BAKSH VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CE)-1991-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), SHILLONG VS. SRI SANGPUIA [LAWS(CE)-2005-1-161] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. GURUSWAMY AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-1976-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI VIJAY M. VIKAMSHI VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (P) [LAWS(CE)-2008-8-201] [REFERRED TO]
NEITHANGA HMAR AND ANR. VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-1962-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRAYAGDAS TUSHNIAL VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS [LAWS(GAU)-1962-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
SANWARMAL PUROHIT AND ANOTHER VS. THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, SHILLONG AND ANOTHER [LAWS(GAU)-1964-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
GAURANGA CHANDRA DEB VS. THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS [LAWS(GAU)-1967-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDRA HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. COLLR. OF CUS. [LAWS(CE)-2001-2-475] [REFERRED TO]
PARESH CHANDRA MONDAL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE, PATNA VS. SMT. NIRMALA MITRA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-117] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
TARA SADAN HATTACHARYYA VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1965-8-31] [REFERRED]
JAWAHAR KNITTING MILLS VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA-I [LAWS(CAL)-1965-11-20] [REFERRED]
S SALEEM KHAN VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [LAWS(MAD)-1984-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
DASS COLOUR LAB VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1993-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
L P ABDUL MAJEED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS [LAWS(MAD)-1995-8-106] [REFERRED TO]
G D MINING AND EXPORT CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1978-8-43] [REFERRED]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-217] [REFERRED TO]
KARAM SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SUNIL KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-11-56] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SUBBA RAO, J. : - (1.)THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.)THIS appeal by certificate is directed against the order of the High court of Judicature of the State of Punjab dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant is at present a resident of Barmer in the State of Rajasthan. But before 1947 he was living in a place which is now in Pakistan. On 22/06/1951, the Deputy Superintendent, Land Castoms Station, Barmer, conducted a search of the appellant's house and recovered therefrom the following ten articles : JUDGEMENT_264_AIR(SC)_1961Html1.htm On 14/07/1951 the Assistant Collector, Ajmer, gave notice' to the appellant to show cause and explain why the goods seized from him should not be confiscated under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and s. 7 of the Land Customs Act. The appellant in his reply stated that items to 5 supra were brought by him from Pakistan after the partition of the country in 1947 and that items 6 to 10 were purchased by him bonafide for value in Barmer. On 27/10/1951, the appellant appeared before the Collector of central Excise, who made an enquiry, and admitted before him that items 6 to 10 were smuggled goods from Pakistan, but in regard to the other items be reiterated his plea that he originally brought them from Pakistan in the year 1947. The Collector of central Excise held that the appellant bad failed to establish that items 1 to 5 had been brought by him to India in the year 1947 and he also did not accept the plea of the appellant in regard to items 6 to 10 that he was a bonafide purchaser of them. In the result he held that all the goods were imported into India in contravention of, (i) s. 3 of the Import Export Control Act read with ss. 19 and 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, (ii) ss. 4 and 5 of the Land Customs Act read with s. 7 thereof. He made an order of confiscation of the said articles under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and s. 7 of the Land Customs Act; but under s. 183 of the Sea Customs Act he gave him an option to redeem the confiscated goods within four months of the date of the order on payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000.00. In addition he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000.00 and directed the payment of import duty leviable on all the items together with other charges before the goods were taken out of customs control. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the central Board of Revenue. The central Board of Revenue agreed with the Collector of central Excise that the onus of proving the import of the goods in question was on the appellant. In regard to items 1 to 5, it rejected the plea of the appellant mainly on the basis of a statement alleged to have been made by him at the time of seizure of the said articles. In the result the appeal was dismissed. The revision filed by the appellant to the central government was also dismissed on 28/08/1953. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High court of Punjab but it was dismissed by a division bench of the High court on 3/11/1954. Hence this appeal.

It would be convenient to deal with this appeal in two parts-one in regard to items 1 to 5 and the other in regard to items 6 to 10.

(3.)THE decision in regard to items 1 to 5 turns purely on the question of onus. THE Collector of central Excise as well as the central Board of Revenue held that the onus of proving the import of the goods lay on the appellant. THEre is no evidence adduced by the customs authorities to establish the offence of the appellant, namely, that the goods were smuggled into India after the raising of the customs barrier against Pakistan in March 1948. So too, on the part of the appellant, except his statement made at the time of seizure of the goods and also at the time of the inquiry that he brought them with him into India in 1947, no other acceptable evidence has been adduced. In the circumstances, the question of onus of proof becomes very important and the decision turns upon the question on whom the burden of proof lies..
This court has held that a customs officer is not a judicial tribunal and that a proceeding before him is not a prosecution. But it cannot be denied that this relevant provisions of the Sea Customs Act and the Land Customs Act are penal in character. The appropriate customs authority is empowered to make an inquiry in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by a person under the said Acts, summon and examine witnesses, decide whether an offence is committed, make an order of confiscation of the goods in respect of which the offence is committed and impose penalty on the person concerned ; see ss. 168 and 171A of the Sea Customs Act and ss. 5 and 7 of the Land Customs Act. To such a situation, though the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Evidence Act may not apply except in so far as they are statutorily made applicable, the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and of natural justice must necessarily apply. If so, the burden of proof is on the customs authorities and they have to bring home the guilt to the person alleged to have committed a particular offence under the said Acts by adducing satisfactory evidence. In the present case no such evidence is forthcoming; indeed there is no tittle of evidence to prove the case of the customs authorities. But it is said that the onus shifted to the appellant for three reasons, namely, (i) by reason of the provisions of s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act; (ii) by reason of s. 5 of the Land Customs Act; and (iii) by reason of s. 106 of the Evidence Act.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.