9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king waiver of pre-deposit of penalty pending disposal of the appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, we allow the Stay Application, and by the consent of both sides, we proceed to hear the appeal. 3. The case relates to a seizure made on 24-1-1989 by the Customs official of Patna on the premises of the appellant on the strength of search warrant. From the residential premises of the appellant, the staff recovered foreign goods valued at Rs. 94,585/-. It is the case of the department that since the appellant did not produce legal documents for the importation of these foreign goods, they were seized on a reasonable belief that they were imported into India illegally. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant and the appellant replied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds in question. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the bulk of foreign goods are found in the premises of the appellant, and when the appellant had admitted that she was keeping these goods for the purpose of sale, a presumption has arisen in this case, and there was reasonable belief for the officers to seize the same, and in such circumstances, it was his contention that the burden had shifted on to the appellant to prove that these are not smuggled goods. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions :- (1) 1986 (25) E.L.T. 811 - Jain Enterprises v. Collector of Customs. (2) 1991 (52) E.L.T. 251 (Tri.) - Order No. 418/Cal/90 dated 30-8-1990. 5. We have heard the arguments advanced on both sides. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion cannot be raised unless there is some admission that these goods are contraband goods. In this case the only admission of the appellant is that the goods are imported goods. Import may be either by payment of duty or without payment of duty. The admission that these are imported goods is not an admission to the effect that they are contraband goods. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that, as far as the goods which are seized in this case and which are not notified, the burden was on the department to prove that these are smuggled goods, and that the initial onus was not discharged by the department. In such circumstances, the confiscation of the goods seized as shown in the seizure list except items No 30 to 38 and item No. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as in the order in original, no such averment is made. It is true that no such averment finds a place in the seizure list, but in the show cause notice there is such an averment that these are seized under a reasonable belief. A reasonable belief is the belief of the officers and on the belief of the officers the Tribunal cannot sit on judgment. In such circumstances the burden had shifted on to the appellant to hold that these items found at Sl. Nos. 30 to 38 and item No. 80 are not smuggled goods. That burden has not been discharged by the appellant in this case. The receipts produced by the appellant in this regard could not be co-related to these items, and accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned adjudicating authorities in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
