9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Ownership claim over seized sugar, discrepancy in quantity, failure to establish ownership, appeal against rejection of claim
Ownership Claim Over Seized Sugar: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a claim by Mr. Kadar Hossain over 1000 Kgs. of sugar seized by BSF near B.P. No. 157/22-R. Mr. Hossain claimed to have purchased the sugar from Murshidabad and requested its return. However, both the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected his claim, citing discrepancies in the quantity of goods and lack of evidence to establish ownership. The appellant argued that he had purchased the sugar and submitted a voucher for the goods. Nonetheless, the Departmental Representative contended that the appellant failed to provide necessary documents, such as bus or luggage tickets, to support his ownership claim. The judges concluded that the appellant did not prove his ownership of the sugar, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Discrepancy in Quantity: One of the key issues raised was the discrepancy in the quantity of sugar seized by BSF and the amount claimed by the appellant. While BSF recorded the seizure of 1200 Kgs. of sugar, Mr. Hossain only claimed ownership of 1000 Kgs. The Departmental Representative highlighted this inconsistency as a reason to reject the claim, emphasizing the lack of supporting documentation from the appellant. The failure to provide essential proof regarding the transportation of the sugar further weakened Mr. Hossain's case, ultimately contributing to the dismissal of the appeal. Failure to Establish Ownership: The judgment emphasized the appellant's failure to establish ownership of the seized sugar convincingly. Despite Mr. Hossain's claim of purchasing the sugar from Murshidabad and submitting a voucher, the absence of critical documents, such as bus and luggage tickets, raised doubts about the authenticity of his ownership assertion. The judges noted that the appellant's inability to provide essential documentation, which could have substantiated his ownership claim, significantly undermined his case. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rightfully concluded that the appellant did not prove his ownership, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Appeal Against Rejection of Claim: The appeal was based on contesting the rejection of Mr. Kadar Hossain's ownership claim over the seized sugar. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding against him, emphasizing his purchase of 1000 Kgs. of sugar and the transportation details. However, the Departmental Representative maintained that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim, including essential documents like bus and luggage tickets. The judgment highlighted the timeline of events, discrepancies in the quantity of sugar, and the lack of supporting documentation as critical factors leading to the rejection of the claim and subsequent dismissal of the appeal.
|
