9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ownership of the Cinnamon in question. The said Cinnamon was seized by the D.R.I. Officers on 19-12-1996 from a godown named as Shikariya Compound situated at Motihari. When the officers visited the said premises, the said Cinnamon was found to be loaded in the two trucks situated inside the said Compound opposite M/s. Laxmi Bhandar. The said Compound comprises of about 10 godowns and a flour mill is also situated therein. The officers recorded the statements of the persons of the two trucks and thereafter, brought the goods to the Customs House. Subsequently, an employee of M/s. Laxmi Bhandar, Shri Pramod Kumar appeared before the Customs Officers and produced Bikri Lekha (sale memo) of Bazar Samittee, Motihari, showing that the consignment in question was to go to M/s. Pramod Kumar Sons, Delhi. The papers relating to purchase of Cinnamon by Shri Pramod Kumar Jain of M/s. Laxmi Bhandar from Shri Purushottam Poddar and Shri Md. Jahangir, were also produced. It was claimed by Shri Purushottam Poddar and Md. Jahangir that they purchased the goods from the Customs Auction. Subsequently, the said two appellants also appeared before the authorities and agreed that the goods in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. He submits that the adjudicating authority has based his finding in respect of Cinnamon having been illegally imported from Nepal on the basis of some minor discrepancies in the statements of various persons, which in any case, are explainable. Drawing attention of the Bench to the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority, he submits that the Commissioner has placed reliance upon the statements of the drivers of the two trucks in question, who deposed that in the morning-hours of 19-12-1996, when they were sleeping in their trucks, after having parked the same in the said Compound, they heard the noise of entry of trucks in the said Shikariya Compound, which indicated that the goods were not the goods which were earlier purchased by M/s. Laxmi Bhandar, but came in the said premises in the morning of the date of seizure. Shri Das, learned Advocate for the main appellant also submits that Shikariya Compound houses more than 10 godowns and huge number of trucks, tractors, etc., keep on coming in the said Compound during the day and night for the purpose of loading and unloading. It is clear in the statements of the drivers that they were sleeping inside the trucks and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersons that they are only Commission Agents and sell the goods under valid documentation in the shape of Bikri Lekha. They have also given a letter to the Customs Department regarding sale of the goods to the appellant before the actual date of seizure. Similarly, reliance by the adjudicating authority that the goods were purchased at the rate of Rs. 90.00 per kg and were sold at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per kg., is also not a legal evidence to arrive at a finding that the goods in question were actually smuggled goods. He submits that Md. Jahangir has categorically stated in his statement that he is a small broker and as the prices were going down, he sold the goods immediately to avoid any further loss. Similarly, reference to the good quality of Cinnamon in question and arrangement of money by various persons for buying the goods from Customs House, are not indicative of goods being of smuggled nature. 3.5. In the light of the above arguments, Shri Das concluded that the adjudicating authority has not produced anything on record to show that the goods in question were not the goods purchased in Customs Auction. The various documents produced by them have also not been belied. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isition and possession of the Cinnamon in question. Not only that the said stand of the main appellant, Shri Pramod Kumar Jain was also duly corroborated by the statements of Shri Purushottam Poddar and Md. Jahangir who have sold the goods to the appellants. They have also produced the documents showing the purchase of the goods from the customs Auction. The said documents produced by the appellants have not been rebutted by the Revenue. The adjudicating authority has gone only by some circumstances to hold the goods to be of smuggled character. Even these circumstances do not inspire confidence in the prosecution-story as explained by Shri P.K. Das, learned Advocate, during the course of arguments. Reference to the truck-movements in the dusk-hours of seizure-day, by the drivers of the trucks who were sleeping in the truck-cabins and had not moved out, cannot be made the basis for holding against the appellants and coming to a finding that the Cinnamon in question was brought in the morning-hour of 19-12-1996, especially in view of the fact that there are almost 10 godowns in the premises in question and the trucks could have come there for some other godown. Similarly, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
