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

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

Section 135. (1) Whoever-

(e) is in any way knowingly concerned in conveying, removing, depositing or dealing with any dutiable, uncustomed or prohibited goods with intent to defraud the Government of any duties thereon, or to evade any of the provision of this Act or to evade any prohibition applicable to such goods; 

…shall be guilty of an offence… 

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

-knowingly concerned

-in conveying, removing, depositing or dealing

-with any dutiable, uncustomed or prohibited goods

-with intent to defraud the Government of any duties thereon, or to evade any of the provision of this Act or to evade any prohibition applicable to such goods

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

No.	Description	Definition
1.	knowingly concerned	-consciousness & presence of mind to involved  (mens rea & actus rea)
2.	conveying	-direct evidence of the act of doing so  (actus rea)
	removing
	depositing
	dealing
3.	dutiable goods	-goods subject to the payment of customs duty and on which such duty has not yet been paid
4.	uncustomed goods	-goods in respect of which a breach of this Act or of any subsidiary legislation made thereunder has been committed
5.	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
6.	intent to defraud	-the accused intention is to defraud the government of any duties or to evade any provision of the  Act or prohibition related to that goods

The burden of proof:-

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

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

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

(c)-that the accused knew that the goods conveyed were dutiable, uncustomed and prohibited.

2.-In order to establish that the goods were dutiable, uncustomed or prohibited at the time of conveying 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.