9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under Receipt No. JJ 40258, dated 27-2-1999. They requested the Customs Officials for release of the goods and produced the receipt but the Customs Officers refused and deposited the said rice before the Jalangi Customs Office. They also mentioned that the BSF officials also deposited some quantities of rice forcibly taken away from other persons also. On 3-3-1999, the appellants submitted the claim petition praying for release of 2,300 kgs of rice. The Customs authority contended that the seizure was effected on the ground of attempt to illegal exportation to Bangladesh. The seizure was reported by BSF personnel that the impugned goods were seized by the BSF personnel in the vicinity of border area as unclaimed goods. 3. A show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seized from the general area of village Sohabrampur whereas the contention of the respondent is that the appellants attempted to export the rice to Bangladesh which is contradictory. Whereas the seizure memo of Customs Division, Krishnagar Customs Division revealed that the goods along with apprehended persons were handed over to the Customs authorities. He, therefore, submits that this is a false case prepared by the Customs authorities in collusion with the BSF personnel. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed. 7. In reply, Shri Kar submits that the appellants could not able to establish the ownership of the goods. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be rejected. 8. After hearing from both sides, I find that the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellants is also contrary to the facts of the case. The appellants are the dealers and petty shopkeepers. There is no iota of evidence that the appellants attempted to export rice from India to Bangladesh. So far the possession of rice is concerned, in the show cause notice, the authorities have admitted that the goods were in their charge. Therefore, the respondents have admitted in the show cause notice the possession of the goods with the appellants. The respondent has failed to prove that the appellants had attempted to export the rice to Bangladesh. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to get the possession of rice. Therefore, the order of confiscation of rice is bad in law. The appeals deserve to be allowed. 9. Consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
