9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in terms of an order passed by the learned Magistrate on 26-12-1988 these goods seized by the Police were taken possession of by the Customs Officers on 11-1-1989. Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant dated 5-7-1989 and received by the appellant on 11-7-1989. That was replied by the appellant and after adjudication proceedings the Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods except one piece Table Fan which was released in favour of the appellant. A personal penalty of Rs. 250.00 was imposed on the appellant by the Adjudicating Authority and that is confirmed in the impugned order. The Penalty has already been paid. 2. The learned Counsel, Shri K. Chatterjee appearing for the appellant contended that in this case, the seizure wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of seizure by the police or from the date of the order of the Magistrate. He stated that the seizure made by the Customs Act, 1962 on 11-1-1989 is not the correct date. For all the above said reasons, he stated that the confiscation is bad. It was also contended that there is no case for imposition of penalty as there is nothing to show that the appellant had the knowledge that these were contraband goods. On the contrary, the first statement given by the appellant must clearly show that these are exhibited in the market and on the belief they are Indian goods, she purchased the same. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 415 (Tri.) = 1990 (28) ECR 395. 3. The learned J.D.R., Shri A. Chowdhur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Gyan Chand referred to above, the Department cannot take the aid of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 in this case, in view of the fact that the same was not seized by the Departmental Officers on a reasonable belief that they were smuggled into the country. That being the position of law as held by the Supreme Court in the above-cited case, it is for the Department to prove that these are smuggled goods. On a perusal of the seizure list it is seen that all these fabrics are stated to be made of fibres which fibres are made from Japan. But there is no indication that the fabrics are made from Japan. On the Contrary, all these fabrics bear the Indian names like 'Shyamal Special', 'Basundhara Fabrics', 'Zamai Fabrics', 'Farz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
