9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it was on his instructions that Shri Chikla was carrying the gold from Mumbai to Hyderabad and that the gold should be returned to him. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate therefore directed the police to hand over the gold to Customs for proceedings to be conducted under the Customs Act. It transpired that the appellant claimed that the gold in question was brought into India by one Vazue Abdul Razaque Umer, Passport No. P-840388, that the said gold was handed over to him for sale; that he knew Razaque for the last four years; that Razaque under an affidavit stated that he handed over the gold to the appellant and that the sale proceeds would have been returned to Razaque but for the seizure, other details that needs to be menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rove that the goods in question are not smuggled. He reiterated the contention of the Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that no relief is called for. 5. I observe that the Department could establish through the Examiner of Questioned Documents that the affidavit purported to have been signed by Razaque was not signed by him and the signature on the affidavit did not tally with the one on the passport of the passenger who was supposed to have brought the gold in his baggage. This goes to prove that the appellant s claim that the gold in question was brought by Razaque is false. Therefore, the question as to how the gold came into the country remains large open. The answer could be given only by the person who claims the gold. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom. In the present case, the appellant put forth a theory that the gold in question was brought by a passenger and in support of this contention filed an affidavit purported to have been signed by the passenger. The Department could establish that the passenger holding a particular passport number could not have signed the affidavit. Once this is done, the burden to establish that the goods are not smuggled even in the case of non-notified goods shifts on to the person who claims himself to be the owner of the goods. I hold that the person concerned, the appellant in this case, has not been successful in establishing that the presumption raised against him is wrong. One should remember that even in D. Bhoormull case the Supreme Court was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
