9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coarse 43 metre . On 20-5-1987 statements of Kanaram, driver of the truck, was recorded under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which he, inter alia, stated that the seized silver belonged to one Shri Madan Lal and it was given to him by Shri Madan Lal in a cloth nedi which he had kept in the cavity of the truck. He pointed out that the silver was to be delivered to Madan Lal at Barmer on 20-5-1987. He also stated that as instructed by Shri Ashok Kumar, the owner of the truck, he had contacted the said Madan Lal and had received from him the seized silver. Kanaram also stated that for the carriage of silver he was to be paid at the rate of 50 Paise per tola out of which 10 Paise were to be retained by him and 40 Paise were to be passed on to the owner of the truck. In his statement dated 27-5-1987 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 Madan Lal inter alia admitted that the seized silver belonged to him. He claimed that it was purchased at Jodhpur in the year 1979 and stated that he would produce the bill after tracing it out. Statement of Ashok Kumar son of Kishan Lal was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 23-5-1987 in which he, inter alia, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20-5-1987 which could not be relied upon against the other persons named therein. He submitted that there was no cavity or secret chamber in the truck as alleged in the show cause notice. Ashok Kumar also contended that Kanaram, driver of the truck, was not authorised to accept any goods for transportation in the seized truck. He contended that the seized truck was not liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. By his order dated 19-8-1990 the Deputy Collector of Customs, Jaipur rejected the appellants contention and ordered absolute confiscation of the seized silver under Sections 111(b), 111(d), 111(k) of the Customs Act, 1962. He ordered absolute confiscation of the seized truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 112 ibid on each of the notices. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector Madan Lal, Ashok Kumar, Kishan Lal and Kanaram preferred appeals before the Collector (Appeals). By the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by Madan Lal. He partially modified the order passed by the Deputy Collector by allowing redemption of the seized truck ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. It has been contended by Shri Madan Lal, who had claimed the seized silver, that it was not liable for confiscation since it belonged to him and had been purchased by him from Kamal Enterprises, Jodhpur against Bill No. 740 dated 24-8-1979. He has also contended that the silver in question did not bear any foreign markings and merely on account of the fact that it was of 99% purity and it was enclosed in a cloth nedi covering bearing certain markings in Urdu it could not give rise to the presumption that it was smuggled from a foreign country. It has been argued that the seizure of the silver in question was illegal and its confiscation under Section 111(d) is not sustainable since silver not being notified at the relevant time under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden to prove its smuggled nature was on the Department which it had failed to discharge. In this regard it is seen that the seizure of the silver in question was effected on the basis of prior information and at a place which was close to the International border across which silver and other articles of foreign origin are smuggled in large quantities. It was found concealed in a cavity made in the truc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 24-8-1979 was of Haathi Chhap and Kanta Chhap whereas the seized silver did not bear these markings. 7. In the case of Collector of Customs, Madras Others v. D. Bhoormull reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1546, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that even when no direct evidence of the illicit importation of the goods was adduced by the Department but several circumstances of a determinative character coupled with the inference arising from the dubious conduct of the person from whom the goods were seized had reasonably led to the conclusion drawn by the Collector that they were smuggled goods and as long as the Collector s appreciation of the circumstantial evidence before him was not illegal, perverse or devoid of common sense or contrary to the principles of natural justice there could be no warrant for disturbing his finding. 8. In view of the foregoing, we find no infirmity in the finding of the Deputy Collector as confirmed by the impugned order that the seized silver was of foreign origin and was smuggled into the country from across the border in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Import Export (Control) Act and was therefore liable for confiscation under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
