The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition which was filed against the acquittal of the Respondents who were alleged to have possession of undeclared article ‘Dexamethasone’ and attempted to evade customs duty. The Bench expounded that the Respondents did not declare the possession of Dexamethasone to evade payment of duty which the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act.

Brief Facts: 

The Respondents arrived at the International Airport and after collecting their baggage, they proceeded through the green channel where they were intercepted. On examination of the baggage, five cartons were found containing white powder and after chemical examination, it was found out that the said article was ‘Dexamethasone’. As the Respondents did not declare the import of such articles and attempted to evade customs duty, they were said to have committed the offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act. The Trial Court held that the Respondents were not guilty as the evidence was insufficient. Thus, the present petition has been filed against the acquittal of the Respondents.

Observations of the Court:

The Bench noted that the possession of Dexamethasone was not declared in the customs gate pass and the Respondents neither mention the same in the pass nor in their retraction statements. Section 77 of the Customs Act obliges every owner of baggage to make a declaration of its contents for the purpose of clearing it and according to Section 77 and Chapter XI in the Customs Act, it is clear that the provision applies to not only baggage, but also to posts and couriers.

It was further observed that if the Respondents informed the proper customs officer that the article was Dexamethasone, then they would have duly complied with Section 77 of the Customs Act but they only made such a statement the first time before the court. The Court stated that Dexamethasone is a dutiable item as per provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Respondents' statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act which were discarded by the Trial Court stating that it didn’t contain all the details were considered by the Court as all the necessary particulars regarding the import of the article were stated in the statements and the person is not required to give an exhaustive statement under Section 108 in order for it to be acted upon and the only requirement is that the person giving the statement is bound to state the truth regarding the subject.

It was held that that the Respondents did not declare the contents of their baggage to evade payment of duty and thereby have committed an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act.

The decision of the Court:

The Court accordingly allowed the petition.

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner v. Anis Mohammed Hussain

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar

Case No.: CRL.A No. 1275 of 2007

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Salish Aravindakshan

Advocates for the Respondent: Advs. Mr. Sunny Mathew, Ms. Seena

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :