Sonam Tshering, a private individual, is appealing his conviction on charges of tobacco smuggling under the Tobacco Control Act, 2010, which prohibits tobacco production, importation, and sale and limits the amount of tobacco an individual can import and possess for personal use. Tshering argues that he should have been charged with violating the prohibition on the sale and purchase of tobacco (Section 11(c)) and not for tobacco smuggling (Section 12). He also argues that because he revealed the source of his supply, he should be charged only with a misdemeanor and not a fourth-degree felony, the relevant penalties for revealing a source related to the sale or purchase of tobacco. Finally, he alleges that the sentence is disproportionate to the offense. (Tshering raised several other grounds not examined here.) The court upheld the lower court’s conviction on charges of tobacco smuggling, reasoning that because Tshering’s source of supply is in India, he engaged in smuggling – cross-border import or export of prohibited or restricted goods. Parliament unequivocally established that tobacco smuggling is a felony of the fourth degree, leaving no room for judicial leniency in the charges. There is room for leniency, however, in the sentence – with a minimum of three years up to a maximum of five years – leaving courts some room to consider the severity of the offense.
Sonam Tshering v. Office of the Attorney General, High Court of Bhutan (2011).
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The Bench notes that the Act does not ban total imports of tobacco and tobacco products for personal consumption. It, therefore, does not breach an individual right and personal choice to consume tobacco and its related products. In accordance with section 12, an individual can import tobacco and tobacco products for personal consumption as per the quantity approved by the Tobacco Control Board and pay relevant duties and taxes as per section 13 of the Act. The Act, as per section 54 states that any person found with more than the permissible quantity for personal consumption under section 12 shall be guilty of the offense for smuggling and shall be punishable with minimum sentence of felony of fourth degree. Hence, there can be no immunity if a person smuggle the tobacco and tobacco products illegally into the country."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Sonam Tshering, a private individual, is appealing his conviction on charges of tobacco smuggling under the Tobacco Control Act, 2010, which prohibits tobacco production, importation, and sale and limits the amount of tobacco an individual can import and possess for personal use. Tshering argues that he should have been charged with violating the prohibition on the sale and purchase of tobacco (Section 11(c)) and not for tobacco smuggling (Section 12). He also argues that because he revealed the source of his supply, he should be charged only with a misdemeanor and not a fourth-degree felony, the relevant penalties for revealing a source related to the sale or purchase of tobacco. Finally, he alleges that the sentence is disproportionate to the offense. (Tshering raised several other grounds not examined here.) The court upheld the lower court’s conviction on charges of tobacco smuggling, reasoning that because Tshering’s source of supply is in India, he engaged in smuggling – cross-border import or export of prohibited or restricted goods. Parliament unequivocally established that tobacco smuggling is a felony of the fourth degree, leaving no room for judicial leniency in the charges. There is room for leniency, however, in the sentence – with a minimum of three years up to a maximum of five years – leaving courts some room to consider the severity of the offense.