9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urshotam Das Bansal filed this appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby his truck was ordered to be confiscated and the option was given to him to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is the owner of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the appellant has also made a statement under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act not sustainable. 4. In respect of the confiscation of the truck, learned Counsel submits that the goods of 3rd Country origin were concealed in readymade garments and the driver of the truck was given instructions in respect of the readymade garments. As the goods were concealed in the packets of readymade gar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the goods manufactured in Nepal and can be imported in India on filing Bill of Entry at the relevant Check post. He submits that even in respect of readymade garments no Bill of Entry was filed. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be dismissed. 6. Heard Both sides. 7. In this case the 3rd Country origin goods were found in the truck which was brought from Nepal. The fact that the goods we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the hood of the truck which was of the 3rd Country origin was carried in truck from Nepal to India. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kripal Singh v. Collector of Customs (Prev.), Patna reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.) held that a case where a person is failed to prove, as required under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, that at the time when the contraband goods were fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
