9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order-in-appeal dated 23-7-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Addl. Commissioner who ordered the confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 35,000/- and also imposed pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority did not accept his plea and ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty on him. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order. 3. I have heard both sides. There is no tangible evidence on the record to show that the seized goods, as detailed in the Panchnama, were smuggled one. These goods, at the relevant time, i.e. at the time of seizure, were not prohibited go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods, admittedly, were OGL and freely available in the market for sale and purchase. The goods were not even the brand new, rather were used one as is clear from the Panchnama itself. No presumption that the used electronic goods found from the studio of the appellant were smuggled by him, could be legally drawn. That being so, the goods could not be ordered to be confiscated under Section 125 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
