9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rs. 10,870/- under Section 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. On 5-2-1985 at about 11.30 hrs. the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Vijayawada along with his staff visited the appellant s shop at Vasavi Market, Vijayawada and found articles such as, spray perfume, shampoo, talcum powder, polyester lunghis, tooth brush, pant bits, shirtings etc. detailed in the inventory attached to the mahazar. Since the authorities had reason to believe that the goods were of foreign origin, they seized the goods under mahazar as per law. The proceedings instituted against the appellant after further investigation ultimately resulted in the present impugned order now appealed against. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems of goods found in his shop do not bear the country of origin, the officers on reasonable belief that they are of foreign origin and they are liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly the mahazar and the party were informed. (emphasis supplied) I should confess I am not able to understand what exactly is sought to be conveyed by this sentence in the mahazar. When immediately on seizure on interrogation the appellant informed the authorities that the goods are of Indian origin and admittedly as per the mahazar the goods did not bear any foreign marking or the name of any foreign country as a manufacturer, I am at a loss to understand how the goods could be seized by the authorities in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the foreign country as manufacturers. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the Collector (Appeals) and his finding under the impugned order, from the inventory of the goods seized that the cosmetics and textile items seized in this case bear foreign markings and are notified under Section 11B of the Customs Act, 1962" is factually incorrect. The goods under seizure, according to the inventory did not bear any foreign markings. Only one item i.e. the first item in the inventory viz., 2 Nos. Tiger Head Brand two cells size torch light with bulbs and without cells - Made in China bears the name of a foreign country as the manufacturer. Therefore, so far as the above item alone is concerned the same is liable to confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
