9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of attempted illegal export based on circumstantial evidence and validity of seizure of goods without proper documentation.
The Lower Appellate Authority upheld the order of the original authority, which found adequate physical/circumstantial evidence of attempted illegal exports. The key considerations included the seizure of a large quantity of sugar near the international border without valid documents, lack of commercial transaction possibilities in the area, and failure to produce lawful possession documents by the apprehended persons. Additionally, a claim petition for release of seized sugar lacked evidence of legal ownership. The Lower Appellate Authority concluded that the circumstances pointed towards attempts for illegal exports. Upon hearing both sides, the consultant for the appellants argued that the impugned sugar was intended for internal transport, not for export, as one of the appellants held a dealership license and the sugar was being transported to their own shop. It was highlighted that the driver of the truck had some documents, which were allegedly snatched away by border security forces, and that the appellants later submitted additional documents to claim ownership. The consultant contended that the goods were part of domestic trade, not meant for export to Bangladesh. After considering the submissions, the judge noted that the show cause notice acknowledged the presence of documents with the driver and subsequent submission of documents by one of the appellants. However, the impugned order did not address these documents and concluded that the sugar was being transported without proper documentation. Upon reviewing the entire case, the judge found insufficient evidence to prove attempted export of sugar. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential benefits.
|
