9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing marking Romantic brands, USA Blend . A statement was recorded from the appellant that he obtained these cigarettes from one Gopen Singh of Imphal. He gave certain telephone Nos. and address of the said Gopen Singh. On investigation by customs authorities, no such person was found to be at the given address.There were no sale invoices or purchase vouchers regarding the valid purchase of the said cigarettes. In the aforesaid facts and circumstantces the customs officers had a reasonable belief that the goods were liabile to be confiscated and hence they seized the same under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Later on it appears that before the sale of the goods no sample of the said goods was retained under Section 110(1A) or (1B). 3. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er that the goods being in commercial quantity and there being no corresponding sale/purchase voucher gives rise to a suspicion of the illegality of the goods. Learned Advocate emphasises the fact that adjudicating authority finds that it is a case of suspicion. He points to a well settled proposition that a suspicion howsoever grave does not take the place of proof. 5. As regards the statement recorded from the appellant on 4-9-96 on which the adjudicating authority has relied it is urged that the statement was retracted on 6-9-96 through a letter sent from the Central Jail Tihar and this fact is not denied by the authorities. This letter was sent soon after he was released from the custody of customs. The learned Advocate submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever grave cannot substitute for proof, burden of which is required in this case to be discharged by the department. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion goods are not liable to be confiscated. We set aside the liability to confiscation of the goods. Since the goods have already been sold in auction the money obtained in auction sale of the goods should be refunded in accordance with law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and having regard to our finding regarding the liability of confiscation of goods, there is just no warrant for imposition of the appellant. Consequently we set aside the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant. Any pre-deposit made by the appellant at stay stage be refunded to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
