Trace Your Case

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS V. D. BHOORMUL

Collector of Customs, Madras and Ors. v. D. Bhoormul, 1974 AIR 859

ISSUE:

  • Whether the Customs Department adequately discharged its burden to prove the goods were smuggled?
  • Can the confiscation of goods be justified solely based on circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the alleged owner?

RULE:

  • The onus of proof does not demand perfect or absolute certainty; it often relies on a prudent person’s reasonable assessment of the case’s probabilities.
  • The prosecution is not required to prove facts that lie exclusively within the accused’s knowledge, as this would impose an unreasonably high burden.
  • Instead, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation for such facts, particularly when the prosecution has presented circumstantial evidence supporting its claims.

FACTS:

  • On June 4, 1962, Customs Preventive Officers seized ten packages of imported goods worth ₹12,255 from Baboothmull’s shop in Madras.
  • The packages containing items such as fountain pens, hair clippers, and razor sets were sealed and appeared to be freshly delivered or prepared for shipment.
  • Baboothmull denied ownership and knowledge of the packages, initially claiming they had been left outside his shop by an unknown broker and later stating they belonged to D. Bhoormul.
  • Despite repeated requests, Bhoormul failed to provide evidence of lawful acquisition, such as bills or purchase documents, or sufficient details about the brokers involved.
  • Bhoormul received two show-cause notices but refused to provide further information or appear in person before the Customs Department.
  • The Collector of Customs concluded, based on the foreign origin of the goods, their suspicious circumstances of seizure, and the implausible explanations provided, that the goods were smuggled and ordered their confiscation under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
  • Bhoormul’s appeal to the Central Board of Revenue was dismissed on September 7, 1964, and his revision petition to the Central Government was rejected on September 7, 1965.
  • A Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed Bhoormul’s writ petition, but the Division Bench allowed his Letters Patent Appeal, ruling that the Customs Department had failed to prove the goods were smuggled.
  • The Customs Department appealed to the Supreme Court of India via special leave, challenging the Division Bench’s judgment.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court granted the appeal and held that, according to section 106 of the Evidence Act, establishing the facts within a person’s special knowledge rests on that person.
  • If that person fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may be drawn against him, which, combined with the presumptive evidence introduced by the other party, may result in a finding against that person.
  • Because the order acts in rem and is only implemented against the goods, the first half of the entry in the third column of clause 8 of section 167 of the Sea Customs Act relating the punishment of confiscation of the goods places a less onerous burden on the prosecution.
  • The fact that the goods were of foreign origin and the inference drawn from the dubious behavior of Baboothmull and Bhoormul could reasonably lead to the conclusion drawn by the Collector that the goods were smuggled goods, even though the Department did not present any direct evidence of the illicit importation of goods.