SMUGGLING OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 135(1)(d) OF CUSTOMS ACT 1967 (ACT 235)

Section 135(1)(d) of Customs Act 1967:-

Section 135. (1) Whoever-

(d) knowingly harbours, keeps, conceals, or is in possession of, or permits, suffers, causes or procures to be harboured, kept or concealed, any uncustomed or prohibited goods; 

…shall be guilty of an offence… 

Section 135(1)(d) of Customs Act 1967 to be read in pieces as follows:-

-knowingly

-harbours, keeps, conceals, or

-is in possession of, or

-permits, suffers, causes or

-procures to be harboured, kept or

-concealed

-any uncustomed or

-prohibited goods

The description of the offence under Section 135(1)(d) of Customs Act 1967:-

No.	Description	Definition
1.	knowingly	-consciousness & presence of mind (mens rea)
2.	harbours (harbouring)	-to store or keep or protect
	keeps (keeping)	-to retain
	conceal (concealment)	-to keep secret or hide
3.	is in possession of	-within the knowledge and control (mental and physical elements)
4.	permits	-authorize
	suffers	-allow
	causes	-give rise to
5.	procures to be　harboured	-obtained as to protect
	kept	-retained
6.	concealed	-hidden
7.	uncustomed goods	-goods in respect of which a breach of this Act or of any subsidiary legislation made thereunder has been committed
8.	prohibited goods	-goods the import or export of which is prohibited either absolutely or conditionally by an order under Section 31 or by any other law

The burden of proof:-

1.-These are the ingredients necessary to establish a prima facie case for charge under Section 135(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1967, namely:

(a)-that there was a possession of the goods by the accused;

(b)-that at the time of such possession the goods were uncustomed or prohibited;

(c)-that the accused knew that the goods possessed were uncustomed or prohibited.

2.-In order to establish that the goods were uncustomed or prohibited at the time of possesion the prosecution is entitled to invoke presumption of law under Section 135(2) of Customs Act 1967 to shift the burden of proof on the accused if there was dispute as to whether duties had been paid in respect of the goods.