9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are panasonic NV-M 3000 V. Canon. 1.2 A show cause notice was issued to the appellant herein to show cause as to why the said video Camera was not confiscated and penalty be not imposed in contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus., dated 22-1-1996. 2. We may state at this stage that this Notification relates to prohibition of import from Nepal to India. It was the case of the appellant before the adjudicating authority that Shri M.K. Saha gifted the camera to the appellant and Deed of gift was also produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority got the said baggage receipt verified from concerned. International Airport that is N.S.B.C. Calcutta Airport. The report dated 3-7-1997 from the Asstt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nced from both the sides. We observe that the basis of the Department s case in the show cause notice was contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus., without any allegation to the effect that the said camera was imported from Nepal. Therefore, the question of contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus. does not arise. On this ground alone, the show cause notice itself fails and consequently, the impugned order would also fail. 7. The next contention of the Revenue appears to be that the report from the Asstt. Commr. of Customs of N.S.C.B. International Airport, Calcutta treats the baggage receipt produced by the appellant as fake. Ld. Consultant Shri Saha has submitted that the report is vague and is not at all categorical. After compari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not agree with the contention of the ld. JDR Shri R.K. Roy that the Department has rightly confiscated. As ld. Consultant rightly states report should have been categorical that the baggage receipt produced does not tally with the said corresponding copy of the customs authorities. The expression used appears to be fake is no doubt vague and no reliance can be placed on the said report. Once this report is taken away from the record, there is no evidence adduced by the Department regarding smuggled character of the camera. This burden squarely lies with the Department to prove the smuggled character of the goods. In the absence of any such evidence, we cannot hold that the camera seized by the officers and before us in this matter has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
