9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Allegation of non-legal import of goods, burden of proof on department, lack of evidence, misconception without appreciation of evidence.
Summary: 1. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, claiming it was based on surmise and suspicion without concrete evidence. The appellant argued that the goods imported from Singapore were legally brought to Delhi, and the department's doubts were unfounded. The statement from M/s. Surya Traders confirmed that the seized goods were non-notified. The appellant contended that the burden of proof lay with the department to show the goods were not brought to Delhi. 2. The appellant asserted that there were no discrepancies in the import process, quantity, or packaging of the goods, leaving no basis for the department's allegations. The Commissioner's decision that the appellant failed to prove legal import was disputed. 3. After hearing both sides and examining the record, it was found that the goods were imported as per the details provided by the appellant. There was no evidence to suggest that part of the goods in Delhi came from a different consignment. The lack of proof regarding the origin of the seized goods supported the appellant's argument that the burden of proof was not met by the revenue department. 4. The evidence on record did not contradict the legal import of 9947 pieces of ball bearings by the appellant. The judgment emphasized that suspicion, no matter how serious, cannot replace proof. It was concluded that there was a misunderstanding without proper evaluation of the evidence. 5. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside in favor of the appellant. The success of M/s. Surya Traders in their appeal also led to the success of the other appellant, Sunil Agarwal. Both appeals were allowed, and the judgment was pronounced in open court.
|
