Court Dismisses Union of India's Appeal, Affirms No Offense Committed Under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India, seeking to overturn the acquittal of Hemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi in a high-profile customs evasion case. The case revolved around allegations of false declaration and fraudulent evasion of customs duty under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The case dates back to February 11, 1991, when Singhvi was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, arriving from London with 30 gold biscuits weighing 3,496.400 grams concealed in a waist belt. The Customs Department alleged that Singhvi had failed to declare the gold and intended to evade customs duty, thereby committing offenses under the Customs Act.
The trial court had acquitted Singhvi, noting that he was intercepted before reaching the customs clearance stage, and thus, no false declaration or attempt to evade customs duty had been made. The court emphasized that preparation or intention alone does not constitute an offense under the Act, which requires evidence of an actual attempt or commission beyond reasonable doubt.
The Union of India challenged this acquittal, arguing that Singhvi's actions constituted an "oral declaration" of carrying gold, as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act, and that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the case as an attempted export rather than import. The prosecution also contended that Singhvi's statement to the customs officer, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, was admissible as evidence.
However, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that Singhvi was intercepted before he could make any declaration at the customs clearance stage. The court reiterated that criminal prosecution under the Customs Act requires conclusive evidence of an attempt to evade duty, which was not established in this case.
The court further observed that Singhvi had been apprehended before any customs clearance could be attempted and that the mere act of carrying gold, without any false declaration or fraudulent evasion, did not constitute an offense under the relevant sections of the Customs Act.
The judgment also addressed the admissibility of Singhvi's statement under Section 108, noting that while such statements can be treated as extra-judicial confessions, they must be voluntary and not coerced. Singhvi had maintained that his statement was involuntary and given under duress.
The Delhi High Court concluded that there was no evidence of a fraudulent attempt to evade customs duty and that the trial court had rightly acquitted Singhvi. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that no criminal offense was made out under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act.
Bottom line:-
Under the Customs Act, 1962, an offense under Sections 132 and 135 related to false declarations or fraudulent evasion of duty requires clear evidence of intent and attempt to evade customs duty, which must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 132, 135, 108, 137, 110(1A), 110(1B), 110(1C), 138A, 82, 83 of the Customs Act, 1962; Section 313, 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Union of India v. Hemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2902651
