9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residential premises of the appellant No. 1, at New Rohtak Road and also his business-godown premises. During the search the officers recovered 184 pieces of Pioneers Speakers from his residence and 20 items of Car Stereo System, Car Cassette receiver, CD remote changer, car audio of different brands from his business-godown premises. All these goods were of foreign origin and as the appellant No. 1, could not produce any document for their lawful acquisition, the same were seized. The statement of appellant No. 1, was also recorded wherein he claimed himself to be partner of the firm M/s. Him Electronics Traders and stated that the goods recovered from his residence and godown premises, were purchased by him from different companies agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tem/car cassette receiver etc. of different brand from the residence and business-godown premises of the appellant No. 1 on 19-5-98 by the officers of the DRI is concerned, the same has not been disputed before us. But the perusal of the record shows that regarding the speakers, appellant No. 1 gave specific explanation and disclosed that he had purchased from M/s. Expert Trading Company, Karol Bagh. He even produced photocopy of invoice dated 12-5-98 showing the purchase of 20 pairs of speakers from that firm. But there is nothing on the record to suggest if any enquiry was conducted from that firm to ascertain the correctness of the explanation of the appellant No. 1. The Commissioner of Customs had summarily rejected the explanation of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t brand name and make of the sold items were not mentioned therein, but this could be verified by the Commissioner by making enquiry from the firms whose names were disclosed by the appellant No. 1. 6. It cannot be disputed that initial burden to prove that the seized goods were prohibited goods which could not be imported without licence/previous permission of the competent authority, was on the Revenue. The Revenue was required to establish that the goods were smuggled goods and their free import/sale was prohibited within the country, in order to invoke the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act. 7. For confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, the Revenue was required to prove these 3 ingredients : (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
