10:00 - 19:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

9069.666.999

Call Us For Free Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Top Legal Defenses in Gold Smuggling Cases: Insights for alleged Accused in Gold Smuggling Cases at Delhi Airport

Best and Experienced Lawyers online in India > Criminal Law  > Top Legal Defenses in Gold Smuggling Cases: Insights for alleged Accused in Gold Smuggling Cases at Delhi Airport

Top Legal Defenses in Gold Smuggling Cases: Insights for alleged Accused in Gold Smuggling Cases at Delhi Airport

Top legal defenses in gold smuggling cases Delhi Airport | Defending against gold smuggling charges Delhi | Best defenses for gold smuggling at Delhi Airport | Legal defense strategies gold smuggling Delhi | How to defend gold smuggling charges Delhi Airport | Gold smuggling case defense lawyer Delhi | Expert defenses in gold smuggling cases Delhi | Legal insights for defending gold smuggling Delhi Airport | Defense tips for gold smuggling cases Delhi | Top lawyer for gold smuggling defense Delhi Airport | Successful defenses in Delhi Airport gold smuggling | Best defense approaches for gold smuggling Delhi | Gold smuggling legal defense strategies Delhi | Insights on gold smuggling defense Delhi Airport | How to fight gold smuggling charges Delhi | Defense attorney for gold smuggling Delhi Airport | Legal tactics for gold smuggling defense Delhi | Delhi Airport gold smuggling defense tips | Effective defenses in gold smuggling cases Delhi | Gold smuggling defense lawyer strategies Delhi Airport |

A person who is accused under a gold smuggling case at Delhi Airport needs to present in his favour concrete defences which would provide him an edge in the legal battle and increase his chances of winning the dispute. But to make that happen, one should be equipped with enough relevant provisions of the Customs Act of 1962 that deal with the legal defences essential for his protection.

Following are some of the top legal defences which an accused can utilize in cases of gold smuggling at Delhi Airport or Terminal:
• Section 110 of the said Act talks about the seizure of goods, documents, and other things. This Section itself specifies the conditions and procedure for seizure of those goods. So, if the accused finds anything being done contrary to the prescribed procedure, he can challenge the validity of that seizure procedure and get his goods (gold) recovered from the authorities.
• Adjoining this provision is Section 124 of the Act, which states that before making any confiscation of any goods or imposing any penalty, the owner of such goods or such person shall be given a notice informing him of the grounds on which his goods are proposed to be confiscated or penalty will be imposed. Issuing notice in this case is an essential duty of the authorities, and after giving the notice, they shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the concerned matter to that owner of goods or concerned person. Procedural lapses in issuing the notice or lack of adequate notice could be taken as a defence to act as grounds for dismissal.
• Section 100 of the said Act deals with conducting a search of a person entering or leaving India on a suspicion that the person has secreted about his identity or has some goods or documents which are liable to be confiscated. In this situation, if the accused feels that the search was done without any valid reason, he can challenge the reasonableness of the suspicion that led to the search.
• Section 105 of the said Act deals with the conducting search of any premises where a customs officer has reason to believe that there could be secreted any goods which are liable to be confiscated by them. In such a situation, the accused can argue legal defences like improper authorization to an officer to conduct the search or a lack of sufficient grounds for conducting the search.
• Section 111 of the said Act deals with the conditions or situations under which the goods brought from a place outside India will be confiscated. An accused can bring a defence that he acted under duress. So, if the accused successfully proves in his favour that there was some sort of force, coercion, threat, or any other psychological pressure to do the act which led to the goods getting confiscated, he may impact the application of this Section, which could prevent his goods from getting confiscated.
• Section 107 of the said Act provides power to the customs officers to examine any person while conducting an enquiry in regard to the smuggling of any goods if they believe that such person is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the accused can take defence in this case by challenging and proving the manner and legality of such examinations.
• Section 108 of the said Act gives power to any gazetted officer of customs to summon any person whose attendance they believe is essential to get any evidence or produce any document or such other thing which the officer believes is in his possession. Now, although the person who is summoned is bound to produce the document or such other thing as may be required, that person can still take a defence in these situations by questioning the legitimacy of such summons if there is any deviation from the procedural norms.
• Section 112 of the said Act prescribes the penalties in case of improper importation of any goods, etc. In this situation, one possible defence strategy is to argue that the penalties should not be imposed because of insufficient evidence and lack of intent.
• Section 122 of the said Act deals with adjudication of confiscations and penalties in regard to any goods liable to be confiscated, including gold, or any person who is liable to be penalized by a specified level of customs officer. Thus, under this situation, an accused can shift the focus on any procedural error or unfair adjudication processes if they occur during adjudication, for example, exceeding the authority by any officer from what he is authorized.
• Section 123 of the said Act puts the burden of proving that the goods which are believed to be smuggled goods but are actually not smuggled goods upon the person who is in the possession of those goods or who claims to be the owner of such goods. However, such an accused person can take a legal defence by arguing that there was failure on the part of the customs authorities to establish a prima facie case, and thus the burden of proving shall be kept away from the head of that accused person.
• As per Section 125 of the said Act, the person whose gold is to be confiscated as per the provisions of this Act can be provided with an option by the officer adjudging it that instead of the confiscation of the gold, the owner or the person from whose possession the gold was seized, pay an amount as fine as such officer thinks fit. In this situation, the person whose gold is going to be confiscated can negotiate for fines in lieu of harsher penalties.
• As per Section 141 of the said Act, the customs officers have a responsibility to control all the conveyances and goods in a customs area in a prescribed manner, including receiving, storing, delivering, despatching, or handling the goods. Thus, a person accused in a gold smuggling case can argue that there were lapses in maintaining control in the area or that there were breaches in protocol by those customs officers.

In the case of Ekdant Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai Adj Customs Appeal No. 87086/2022, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized 31.906 kg of gold along with Indian currency worth 73,23,400 from the appellant, M/S Ekdant Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Apart from that, gold strips of 2375.970 gm were sized from his workshop. Show cause notices were issued, but the appellant was not mentioned in such notices; thus, the appellant sought a provisional release of the seized goods in violation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates the issuance of notice within a stipulated period. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal held that compliance of notice did not attain finality, and the law mandates the restoration of property to the owner if a show cause notice is not issued within a stipulated deadline. Thus, the seized goods are to be released forthwith to the appellant.

In conclusion, it would be right to say that incorporating a correct legal defence strategy at the correct moment by using the appropriate provision would relief to a great extent from a gold smuggling case and provide a comprehensive legal shield for such individuals.
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Sahil Arora

 

#GoldSmugglingDefense #CustomsLawyerDelhi #DelhiAirportLaw #SmugglingOffense #CustomsDefense #LegalAdviceDelhi #AccusedRights #SmugglingCaseDefense #GoldSmugglingCases #DefenseStrategies

No Comments

Leave a Comment

    What is 8 + 1?