Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 2(s),2(s)(ii),16,156(1),156(2),156(8),15 6(89),157,164,181

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 2(s),2(s)(ii),16,156(1),156(2),156(8),15 6(89),157,164,181

Law: Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950

Section: 3(1)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- -S. 2(s)-S.R.O. No. 566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005-Smuggled goods- Scope-'Black tea'-Consignment of "black tea" was confiscated on 06-01-2007- Item No.35 of S.R.O. No.566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005 stated "Black Tea (except Op-Pekoe)", thus black tea was a restricted/prohibited item and fell within the meaning of smuggled goods in terms of S. 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- -S. 2(s)-S.R.O. No.566(l)/2005 dated 6-6-2005 ("the SRO.")- Smuggled goods-Scope-'Artificial silk cloth'-Item No.28 of S.R.O. No.566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005 pertained to man-made or synthetic fibers/fabric-Cloth, in the present case, was described as artificial silk cloth and was undoubtedly a man-made fabric as it comprises of synthetic fiber and thus was squarely covered by Item No. 28 of the SRO-Cloth in question was of a foreign origin and was a restricted/prohibited item as per Item No.28 of the SRO, therefore, it fell within the meaning of smuggled goods in terms of S. 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. (c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- -S. 156(1), Cl. 89-"Smuggled goods"-Salient features of Cl. 89 of table provided under S. 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969-Clause 89(i) dealt with smuggled goods as well as those goods regarding which there was reasonable suspicion that they were smuggled-Person was permitted to acquire possession etc. of such goods only with lawful excuse, the burden of proof of which laid on such person, and in case he failed to do so, it would be presumed that the goods were smuggled entailing the consequences provided in Column 2 of Cl. 89(i). (d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- -S. 156(1), Cl. 90-"Smuggled goods"-Salient features of Cl. 90 of table provided under S. 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969-Clause 90 of S. 156(1) dealt with goods that were not smuggled and regarding which there was "fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon"-Burden laid on the person involved in such activities to prove the contrary, in the absence of which it would be presumed that the goods were non-duty paid in terms of Cl. 90-In this regard, first the department had to show that the goods which were of a foreign origin…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492