9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,000/- on the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that on 3-10-1989, the Customs Officers of Lakhimpur Kheri raided a private godown and recovered indigenous miscellaneous goods after breaking the locks, on the reasonable belief that the same are meant for surreptitious removal to Nepal from Tikunia. The owner of the private godown, Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma stated that the same had been given on rent to the appellant for housing the indigenous goods. He also admitted that the appellant is a forwarding agent. The goods recovered included utensils, Indian cloth and brass-wares valued at Rs. 1,16,510/-. They were seized on reasonable belief that they were being exported illegally to Nepal. Summons were issued to the appellant. Show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons have claimed ownership of these goods. In such circumstances, he contended that the imposition of penalty and confiscation of the goods are in accordance with law. 5. We have considered the submissions. The point that arises for our determination is whether the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of penalty on the appellant is in accordance with law. 6. It is now seen that in a case like this, the department should prove that there was an attempt on the part of the appellant to export these goods to Nepal. In the decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 1111 - State of Maharashtra v. Yakub Others, the Honourable Supreme Court held that there is a distinction between Preparation and Attempt . An Attempt begins where Prep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted, at best it amounts to a preparation. That being so, the confiscation of the goods in question and imposition of penalty cannot be justified. But the learned J.D.R. Shri B.B. Sarkar contended that there are other claimants of the goods as would be evident from the application made by them and the same cannot be returned to the appellant. But under Section 125 of the Customs Act, if any goods are seized the same has to be returned to the owner, or where such owner is not known, the person from whose custody such goods have been seized. Admittedly, the goods were seized from the custody of the appellant. Therefore, even if the owners had not claimed the goods, when the goods are not confiscable in law, the same are to be returned to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
