9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of his Claim Petition filed on 26-10-1989. No penalty is imposed on the appellant. It is against this order of confiscation, the present appeal is filed. In order to appreciate the contentions it is necessary to narrate the brief facts of this case which are as follows. 2. Acting on an information the Customs officers of Basirhat P.U. had been to Charghat under Swarupnagar Police Station and at about 03.00 hrs. on 1-10-1989 they noticed some persons approaching towards Machlandapur from Bangladesh side by bicycles with some load on the carriers. On challenging the said persons they fled away leaving their bicycles. The officers, however, could not apprehend them and the said persons escaped under cover of darkness. On examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese goods are smuggled ones. He also stated that the show cause notice proceeded on two points viz. that the goods are believed to be of foreign origin and that the appellant did not come forward with documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Shri Chatterjee pointed out that the appellant had produced necessary documents along with the Claim Petition dated 26-10-1989. Therefore, the basis under which the show cause notice was issued is not correct. He also pointed out that the claim of the appellant is substantiated by the documents and therefore, the impugned order is not in accordance with law. The goods may be returned to the appellant. 7. The learned Junior Departmental Representative, Sri B.B. Sarkar reiterated the reasonings g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of Shri Chatterjee it is necessary to find out the allegations in the show cause notice wherein the Department had clearly stated that some persons were carrying the goods from Bangladesh and they came nearby the border and at that juncture when they were challenged, they left the bicycles by which they had come and ran away under the cover of darkness. Therefore, the theory of putting the goods in a van as claimed by the appellant is not supported by any evidence. Even otherwise, there is no reason for these goods to be carried to the border. The contention of Sh. Chatterjee that it was not intercepted at the border is not correct. The reason is that, in the brief arguments submitted by the appellant during the personal hearing bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when they were traced out. The whole conduct of the appellant is highly suspicious that the probabilities are not in favour of the appellant s case that these goods of 2100 pcs. Nylon Vests belong to him. In that view of the matter, the ownership of these goods which are 2100 pcs. of Nylon Vests as claimed by the appellant, is not established on the facts and circumstances of this case. Having arrived at this finding of fact that the appellant has not established his ownership of the goods, the confiscation order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority is in accordance with law. 11. In this view of the matter, the question of consideration as to whether the Department has proved that these goods are smuggled in nature becomes academ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
