9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti, searched the office-cum-godown and factory premises of the appellants at Maligaon, Guahati from 13-7-1984 to 14-7-1984, and recovered Galvanised Steel Sheet weighing 12.554 M.T. of 0.11 mm thickness in 7 coils and 10.655 M.T. of 0.16 mm thickness in 3 coils, collectively valued at Rs. 3,50,034/-. Shri Sushil Jain, one of the partners of the firm who was present could not produce any evidence in support of licit importation/acquisition/possession of the goods. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that they were imported illegally in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Import Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1955 issued under Section 3(1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5,000/- was imposed on M/s. Vijay Enterprises under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The learned Advocate Shri S. Mukhopadhyay appearing for the appellant contended that the orders passed by the learned Collector are not in accordance with the law. It was his contention that the order was passed by the learned Collector on 13th June, 1985 confiscating the goods. In this connection, he pointed out that this Tribunal heard the matter with respect to the extention of the Show Cause Notice and pronounced the orders in the open Court on 11th June, 1985 holding that the Show Cause Notice not having been issued within six months period the goods were liable to be returned to the appellant and that order was followed by a written order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision reported in 1983 E.L.T. 322 in the case of B. Laxmichand v. Government of India, and 1988 (34) E.L.T. 690 in the case of Thurtikader Abdul Hamid v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, and 1987 (32) E.L.T. 769 in the case of Collector of Customs Central Excise v. Ajit Singh. 6. The learned JDR Shri P.C. Jain contended that the seized goods are imported goods from foreign countries and they are not Indian goods. It was his contention that these are canalised items from the year 1983-84 and 1984-85 and only actual users can import the same. It was also contended that the learned Collector has relied on several circumstantial evidence to show that the goods are smuggled in character. It was also contended that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gled in nature. 7. We have heard both the sides in detail. As far as the confiscation of the goods are concerned, the orders were passed by the learned Collector on 13th June, 1985. But, in this connection, it has to be noted that this Tribunal had passed an order in the open Court on 11th June, 1985 in respect of these goods in Order No. 274/Cal/85-7315 holding that the extension of the Show Cause Notice period of six months is not in accordance with the law and ordered return of the seized goods to the appellants. This oral order was pronounced in the open Court before both the parties and a written order was also passed by the Tribunal in this behalf dated 13-6-1985. On the face of the order of this Tribunal requiring the learned Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. Page 811, relied on by the learned JDR is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, YKK Zip fastners in bulk were seized and there was a statement of the appellant which inculpates him with the offence and in those circumstances it was held that the burden of the department was discharged and it was for the party to prove that the goods are not smuggled in character. But in this case, there is no inculpatory statement of the appellant and a mere fact that the goods are of foreign origin is not sufficient to discharge the burden on the appellant. In this connection, the case laws cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 168 is to the effect that when the goods are neither notified un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urden has shifted on the appellant to prove that these goods are not smuggled goods. 9. Even otherwise, we observe that the appellants had produced evidence to show that they have purchased 7 coils of galvanised sheets from Vijay Enterprise, which was corroborated by the statement of Sri Pawan Saraswat, Partner of M/s. Vijay Enterprise. It is true that the department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision. The same applies to the appellants also and, therefore, the evidence of Sri Pawan Saraswat of M/s. Vijay Enterprise recorded by the Customs officers and also bills produced with respect to 3 coils substantiates the case of the appellants that they have purchased the same and that they had no knowledge that they we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
