9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bangalore dated 16-12-1987 who absolutely confiscated the goods in question under Sec. 111(d)/111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 ( the Act for short), besides a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied on the respondent under Sec. 112 of the Act, which on appeal was allowed by the lower appellate authority under the impugned order against which the Department has come by way of an appeal before the Tribunal. Value 1. National Panasonic 3-band radio cassette recorder - Model No. RX 1490T Matsushits Electric - Made in Japan. 6 Nos. Rs. 9,000.00 2. National Panasonic 3-band radio cassette recorder - Model RX 1550T Made in Japan - Matsushits Electrical Indl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case. 3. Shri A.M. Subbayya, Ld. counsel for the respondent contended that in respect of notified goods he produced a bill dated 14-5-1985 for 15 radio cassette recorders (National) of Indian make and therefore, the respondent has established that the goods are of Indian origin. In regard to the other goods the Ld. counsel submitted that they are non-notified items and the Department has to discharge the onus that they are goods of foreign origin and further smuggled into the country. The Department has not done proper verification of the bills and, therefore, the authenticity of the same cannot be challenged. The learned counsel further submitted that the Department sold away the goods during the pendency of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied goods and the burden is on the respondent. The mere production of a bill would not absolve the respondent of the onus cast on him under law. The bill mentions 15 numbers whereas the goods under seizure are 8 nos. of 3 band radio cassette recorders. Shri Batra, the proprietor of M/s. Rolex Electronics System Ltd. who has issued the bill in his statement dated 9-7-1986 would merely say that he purchased the goods out of his money. This testimony would not in any way help the respondent to discharge the onus cast on him and that he had purchased and sold the goods that would not make the goods any-the-less of foreign origin, much less contraband goods unless the onus is discharged by the person concerned as per law. I, therefore, on the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fecting any sale. The mere production of the bill would not establish the licit acquisition in the facts and circumstances of the case. The ratio of the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Kanyalal v. Collector of Customs, Bangalore reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T 326 (Tribunal), is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case because in that case a definite finding in appreciation of evidence has been entered that the goods had not been proved to be of foreign origin which is not the case in the present appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the non-notified nature of 30 car cassette records referred to above, I reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
