9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... totally valued at Rs. 11,45,000.00 with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 3.00 lakh. The balance of 5979 Mtrs. of Silk Fabric seized from the appellants premises, has been ordered to be released unconditionally. A personal penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 has been imposed upon the appellants under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that as a result of search of their business-cum-godown premises by the Customs Officers on 27-1-1999, Silk Fabric of Chinese origin was seized by the Officers. Statements of various persons were recorded. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the Sil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transporter had also stated that he had brought the goods to the appellants, the appellants were not required to produce the documents substantiating the transactions between M/s. Saboo Sarees and M/s. Kalipar Engg. He has submitted that the very basis of the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner is erroneous and the impugned Order is liable to be set aside on this ground. Shri Mehta also argues that the Silk Fabrics are not notified items under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and as such, the onus is upon the Revenue to establish that the goods are smuggled. On the contrary, the appellants have produced a document, the bona fides of which are not doubted by the Revenue. As such, the adverse findings against the appellants based onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 4.1. As regards the balance 5728.00 Mtrs. of Silk Fabric, it is seen that the appellants have produced purchase documents from M/s. Saboo Silk Exports and M/s. Saboo Sarees. Investigations conducted by the Revenue reveal the genuineness of the said documents. The sellers have agreed to have sold the goods in question to the appellants. They have, further, produced the bill of entry showing legal importation of the goods in question by M/s. Kalipar Engineering. To discard the documents on the ground that there is no transaction documents between M/s. Saboo Silk Exports or M/s. Saboo Sarees and M/s. Kalipar, is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence produced by the appellants. The appellants were not required to establish the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
