9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led into India and hence liable to confiscation and persons who were involved in the smuggling were liable to penalties. 2. We have heard advocates and other representatives on behalf of the appellants and the Departmental Representative. 3. The contention on behalf of the persons on whom penalties have been imposed is that it has not been established that when the goods were smuggled into India; that, alternatively persons concerned did not know or have reasons to believe that they were smuggled. It was stated that D.M. Prasad (Appeal C/521/91) has died during the pendency of the appeal. It was pleaded on behalf of the persons from whom fax machines were seized and later ordered to be confiscated that they were purchased in good faith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... highly restricted being permitted to only actual users in limited quantity. It has not been established that machines were imported in this manner. The fact of Sigma Enterprises being a fictitious firm and further fact that the machines were not permitted to be manufactured or marketed in India leads to the conclusion that they were smuggled into India. 6. Fax machines were not notified under Section 123 of the Act, and the burden of proving that they were smuggled was upon the Department. The Collector, in his order, does not endeavour to see that whether that burden has been discharged. This is clear from the following extract from his order : All this evidence clearly establishes that the 58 machines in question which were not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearings with regard to which the adjudicating authority found that fictitious nature of the consignee and the person from whom they were seized could not name the broker justified the conclusion that they were smuggled. The Tribunal did not accept this contention relying on earlier decisions of this Tribunal in Arvinder Singh v. Collector of Customs - 1987 (26) E.L.T. 792 and Collector of Customs v. Shri Balkrishnan - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 69. The Tribunal said that the circumstances that the consignee was fictitious and the appellant could not prove legal acquisition may arise suspicion and that mere fact of the goods being foreign origin would be insufficient to hold that they were smuggled. The Departmental Representative contends that the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indians and that he purchased then bona fide and in good faith. He attempts to link this letter with the statements of Kotkar and Indervadan Shah relating to meeting in which these two and Prasad were present, and in which, they narrate Prasad demanded a letter from Sigma Enterprises stating that the machines were assembled in India. No such letter is forthcoming in the proceedings. The only evidence for that letter is the statement of Indervadan Shah in which he says he remembers in sending such letter. Prasad's letter does not constitute an attempt to explain legal importation of the goods. The letter in fact takes the stand that he was under the impression that the goods were assembled in India. Now the Department's own stand is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
