9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispose of these two appeals by this common order. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 28-5-1985 the Sub-inspector of Town Police, Bettiah, intercepted the appellant, Shri Pannalal and found six kg. of silver bullion valuing Rs. 15,540/-. He seized the same. Thereafter the silver bullion along with Shri Pannalal was handed over to the Customs Department on 5-6-1985. A show cause notice was issued to both the appellants, Shri Pannalal and Shri Badri Prasad stating why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Replies were filed and thereafter the adjudication proceedings went on. In the adjudication proceedings the Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Officers have seized the same. There is no seizure memo also in this regard. It was, therefore, contended that on this ground alone the silver bullion are liable to be returned. He also contended that the assay made in this regard showed that the silver contents are 72.1% and in that case it is silver alloy, and not silver bullion. Shri Biswas contended that in the show cause notice it was mentioned as to why the silver should not be seized and thereafter, it was mentioned that the appellant should show cause as to why they should not be confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act. Relying on that he stated that there was actually no seizure of the silver bullion as the show cause notice itself states that cause should be shown as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authorities, there is sufficient proof to show that Section 11K of the Customs Act was violated. He also contended that the distance given by the Railway Authorities may not clearly indicate the distance from the nearest point involved. With respect to the second certificate given by Shri Biswas, Shri Sarkar pointed out that the query made by the department was on 28-4-1987, and the reply was shown as having been given on 30-3-1987. Shri Sarkar also contended that the confiscation should have been done under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act, and when the allegations are found in the record for confiscating the same under Section 113(1) the proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated by stating a wrong sub-section as Section 113(d) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) = 1986 (8) ECR page 411 - Raman Kishore v. Collector of Customs. Relying on these decisions he contended that silver bullion is a bullion irrespective of any degree of fineness. 7. Shri P.K. Biswas pointed out that seizure report of the police will go to show that the silver was seized at Bettiah Bus Stand at 8 o clock on 26-5-1985. It was also contended that the letter addressed to the person at Muzaffarpur was found in the possession of the appellant, Shri Pannalal to cover the movement from Bettiah to Muzaffarpur. Shri Biswas also contended that in both the orders the Collector (Appeals) have confirmed the orders of the adjudicating authority with respect to attempt to export, as defined under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kistan border in the territories of the States of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab and Jammu Kashmir and the Indo-Nepal Border in the States of U.P., Bihar and West Bengal. It is for the department to prove that the place of interception was within this specified area. The appellant had produced a letter written by the Superintendent Customs (P) Circle dated 28-4-1987 addressed to the Special Officer of Bettiah, wherein he had requested the Special Officer to know the actual crow-fly distance from Bettiah to Indo-Nepal Border in order to finalise the case of the Department. But there is no material furnished by the Department to show as to what was the distance from Bettiah to the borders. Unless it is shown that the distance from Bettiah (plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he belt area. But in the appeal the Collector of Customs (A) observed that from discussions and finding in the order as well as further verification of the distance of seizure he found that the place of interception i.e., Bettiah town is 30 kms from Indo-Nepal Border. It is not made clear as to what was the further verification which he had made to find out that the place of seizure is 30 kms away from Indo-Nepal Border. Hence, there are no materials to show that the place of seizure comes within the belt area of 50 kms. The department also had not placed any material to show as to what was the reply given by the Special Officer of the District Office of Bettiah to the letter written by the Supdt. of Customs, Bettiah dated 28-4-1987 request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
