9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he officers of the Customs Department seized from the possession of the appellant tools of various kinds such as drills, screw-drivers, saw blades etc. on the belief that the goods have been smuggled into India. The appellant could not produce evidence of importation of the goods, or legal acquisition by him. He said that the goods had been sold to him by third party. Subsequently, he produced som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant could not produce before the Department D.P. Khandelwal, who, he said, had supplied the goods, does not mean that the nature of the goods as having been smuggled has been established. Decisions of the Tribunal are cited in support. 3. The Departmental Representative contends that by the fact of the appellant having undertaken to produce Khandelwal, the burden of proof shifted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment. In the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the Departmental Representative, the Supreme Court confirmed the finding of the Calcutta High Court that the burden of proving that the wrist watches which were seized from Kanungo and Company were lawfully imported and shifted to it after the Customs Department informed it of the result of the enquiry and investigation regarding the claim ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appears that what the appellant said was that the goods were supplied to him in his capacity as a commission agent by D.P. Khandelwal and others. It would not be correct to say that the appellant undertook to prove that the goods were legally imported, when he said that he would produce Khandelwal. If the Department s plea had to be accepted, it would follow that by producing Khandelwal the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
