9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the spot said that he agreed with the contents of the panchnama. He said that these goods have been manufactured by his father from components imported by him and suggested that his father would be the proper person to give necessary clarification. Harbanslal Dawar was contacted by officers. By statement dated 7-7-1999 he maintained that the goods have been assembled out of the imported components. He said that it was assembled by mechanic Manoj. Manoj confirmed this statement. A few days latter Dawar by his letter gave the departmental officers the break up of the components used in the manufacture showing details of the imports of the foreign components made and those relating to local purchase. The department being not satisfied with the reply issued a notice. The notice alleged that evidence of legal importation have not been produced. It therefore proposed to confiscate the goods under the provisions of Section 111(a) and (b) of the Act, and proposed penalty on the firm and its proprietor under Section 112. Adjudicating on the notice the Commissioner has confirmed the prima facie view in the notice that the goods were imported, ordered their confiscation without any option to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on the ground that the printed circuits are far lower in value than the price of printed circuits used in the manufacture of the seized goods. For determining the value of the latter, he relies upon the opinion of, whom he calls an expert, an employee of Dhanraj Service Centre, Ahmedabad. The copy of this expert s opinion has not been produced. Further, we do not find what qualification he has as an expert. Dhanraj Service Centre is stated to be a service centre of Aiwa. The components that the appellant manufactured bore the brand name of Aiwa. It appears the appellant was not entitled to use the brand name. In these circumstances, whether the statement of a person representing Aiwa is considered to be impartial evidence is debatable in the extreme. Apart from this, the mere fact that he was working in a service centre does not qualify him as an expert. Appellant s request for cross-examination has also been denied. His statement that the printed circuit board imported by the appellant therefore could not have been used in the manufacture of these components is therefore insufficient to reject the appellant s claim. The other reason that the Commissioner advances for not accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad said that his father, the proprietor of the firm Dawar Radios would be the appropriate person to clarify the details, but stated generally that the goods were assembled from components imported by Harbanslal Dawar. Harbanslal Dawar s statement was recorded on 7-7-1999, in response to a summons dated 5-7-1999. This chronology therefore shows the gap between the date of seizure of the goods and recording of the statement of Bimal Dawar and another lapse of seven days between this date and the recording of the statement of his father. We are unable to see why, when Bimal Dawar was present on 25-6-1999 in the godown the departmental officers chose to wait for five days before recording his statement. The summons had been issued to him only on 28-6-1999 three days after the seizure. It is also beyond our understanding that why the officers had to wait another seven days to record the statement of Harbanslal Dawar. Bimal Dawar does not say in his statement that his father was away from town or otherwise unavailable nor is there any such indication in the record. We are not able to see any reason as to why the statement of Bimal Dawar could not have been recorded shortly after the seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Shailendra Nath Seth v. CC, 1993 (60) E.L.T. 347 relates to the applicability of the provisions of Section 123 of the Act (under which wrist watches are notified) to watches seized from the appellant and therefore is clearly irrelevant to the facts of the present case. The decision of the Tribunal in Ballav Daga v. CC, 1991 (52) E.L.T. 251 concluded that, on the facts before it, and clear admission made by the party, and its failure to produce necessary bills and documents as well as to disclose the names of the brokers from whom he has purchased the burden of proof that the goods were not smuggled has rightly shifted to the appellant. None of these facts is present in the case before us. The conclusion in Sumer Chand Jain and Nagin Chand Jain v. CC, 1992 (59) E.L.T. 150 that the burden of proving 500 watch movements, containing marking suggestive of foreign manufacture which were seized from the appellant was upon them, the particulars of the facts of that case, markings on the goods, their large value, absence of documents relating to goods at the time of seizure and submission of these documents only after nine months in reply to the show cause notice, name of a broker in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
