S.77 Customs Act Mandates Declaration Of Contents Of Not Just Baggage, But Also Posts And Couriers: Kerala High Court

Justice P G Ajithkumar observed thus:

“Section 77 of the Customs Act obliges every owner of a baggage to make a declaration of its contents for the purpose of clearing it. Incidentally, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that Section 77 of the Customs Act does not attract in the case of baggage, but only posts and couriers. I am unable to agree with that submission. A reading of Section 77 in the light of the headings of the section and Chapter XI in the Customs Act make it clear that the said provision applies to not only baggage, but also posts and couriers.”

In the facts of the case, the Assistant Commissioner of Air Customs charged the respondents 1 and 2 under the Customs Act for carrying 27.5 Kgs of 'Dexamethasone' through Green Channel in their baggage. It was alleged that they committed offence under Section 132 of the Customs Act by not declaring the import of 'Dexamethasone' before the customs official in order to evade payment of customs duty. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam acquitted them finding that there was insufficient evidence. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the Assistant Commissioner preferred an appeal.

The respondents contended that there was no suppression, misinformation or attempt to evade customs duty. It was argued that they proceeded to the Red Channel and declared that they possessed medicinal preparation, Dexamethasone but it was the authorities who were doubtful whether it was dutiable item or prohibited item. It was further submitted that the Appellate Court shall not interfere with the observations of the Trial Court unless it was perverse or against law.

The special public prosecutor submitted that the judgment ought to be reversed since it was given without considering evidence in proper perspective.

The Court stated that a total of five cartons of Dexamethasone was found in the baggage of the respondents who passed through the Green Channel. It stated that the customs officials detained the articles for detailed examination, and it was seized after drawing samples.

The Court stated that the respondents did not mention in the pass that the article they brought was Dexamethasone. It stated that Dexamethasone is a dutiable item as per the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. Thus, the Court held that respondents would have complied with Section 77 of the Customs Act if they had informed customs officer that they carried Dexamethasone.

“I hold that the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the respondents did not declare the contents of their baggage and that was with a view to evade payment of duty on the article they imported, which is Dexamethasone. They thereby had committed the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act. Hence, on reversing the findings of the trial court, the respondents are convicted of the said offence,” added the Court.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal. It imposed a fine of fifty thousand rupees upon the respondents, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Salish Aravindakshan

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Sunny Mathew, Public Prosecutor Seena C

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 344

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner v Anis Mohammed Hussain

Case Number: Crl. A No. 1275 Of 2007

Click here to read/download Judgment