9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (6) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the appeal is in time. The same is barred by limitation. He also stated that the appellant is only the Manager and he cannot claim the goods in question. He also pointed out that the appellant has no case on merits. 3. This case arose out of a seizure made by the Customs Officers of about 1397 pieces of Ball Bearings of foreign origin. They were seized from M/s. Internal Road Services, C-7, Strand Warehouse, Calcutta-I. The ball bearings were booked by M/s. Shyam Trading Co. The goods were valued at Rs. 71,265.00. The same were seized on a reasonable belief that they were smuggled into the country. The appellant in his letter dated 15-9-1986 submitted that they had purchased the goods on cash payment from the open market in Calc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act that the appellant knew that the gold in his possession was smuggled and imported without permit. Relying on the above observation of the Supreme Court and if the above principal is applied to the facts of this case, it is seen that the appellant has failed to disclose the names of the persons from whom he has acquired the foreign ball bearings. The appellant is dealing in ball bearings in the normal course of business. He is expected to purchase the same under proper bills. In this case, not only he has not produced any bills but he has failed to identify the persons from whom he has purchased these ball bearings. A vague statement is given that he has purchased it in Calcutta from the open market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department is discharged. After the initial burden of the Department is discharged it is for the appellant to prove or name the persons from whom they have purchased it. Instead of proving the same, the Appellant is stating that they have purchased it in Calcutta from the open market through dalals without naming those persons. In such circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn and the circumstance of the case goes to show that the Department has discharged its initial burden to prove that these are smuggled goods. 6. In another decision reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1546 (SC) = 1974 (3) SCR 833 in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhooramal the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows : It was also pointed out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
