9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on appellant Rabinder Kumar Jaiswal, C/o Music Mahal, (Appeal C-141/85-Cal) and another sum of Rs. 5,000 /- on Shri Jayant Kumar Jaiswal. 2. The facts of the case are that on 3rd November, 1983, on a secret information, the Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna, along with his staff raided the shop, namely, Music Mahal, at Bakaiganj, Patna. The appellant Jayant Kumar Jaiswal, who is the younger brother of appellant Rabinder Kumar Jaiswal, was present at the counter. Initially he denied of having the keys of the godown and stated that his elder brother is in possession of the same. Later, he produced the keys and the godown was searched and a large num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggled goods in nature. 4. The learned J.D.R. Shri Sarkar stated that on the first day when the seizure was made, Jayant Kumar Jaiswal was present. He could not produce any documents to show the licit importation of the goods. His conduct in denying the possession of the key of the godown is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. It was also pointed out that on some of the goods, the foreign markings were erased and on some other goods, some pastings were done in order to cover the foreign markings. There was also a secret information to the officers. In that view of the matter, the Officers had prima facie materials to entertain a reasonable belief and, therefore, the burden had shifted on the appellant to prove that these are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were smuggled goods. In a decision reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 483 (SC) = 1987 (7) ECR 353 SC : State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jidamalji Porwal and Another, the Supreme Court held that the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal in regard to the question of reasonable belief. It was also observed that if prima facie, there are grounds to justify the belief, the Courts have to accept the Officers belief, regardless of the fact whether the Court of its own might or might not have entertained the same belief. It was also held, whether or not the Officers concerned had entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances, is not a matter which can be placed under legal microscope with an over-indulgent eye which sees no evil anywhere withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und taken in the adjudication order to disbelieve several vouchers which were produced by the appellants. The learned Advocate Shri U.C. Chatterjee also stated that during the course of hearing, the adjudicating Officer had made notes of hearing wherein he had clearly mentioned that the Advocate showed the original vouchers, cash-memos etc. to him. We have perused the notes of hearing which were recorded by the Additional Collector on 28-7-1984. They reveal that the learned Advocate for the appellants showed the originals of all the vouchers, the copies of which were produced before the learned adjudicating authority. But none of these vouchers were considered by the adjudicating authority. He dismissed the veracity of the same only because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
