9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner in the impugned orders confiscated the goods, imposed redemption fines and also imposed penalty on the person from whose possession the goods were seized. Hence these appeals. 2. The details of the appeals are summarised in a tabular form below : Appeal No. Description of goods Quantity in MT Value of goods (Rs.) Duty (Rs.) Redemption fine (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) C/151 Imported stainless steel coils 16.8 10,31,875/- 6,92,248/- 1,10,000/- 28,400/- C/170 -do- 25.780 15,83,437/- 10,62,270/- 1,70,000/- 42,454/- C/148 -do- 28.960 17,78,756/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts are almost identical. Each of the owners of the goods was asked to explain as to where they got the goods from. The fact that these goods are of foreign origin is not denied by anyone. The owners explained that they received the goods after they purchased them from various stockists/importers in Mumbai. The department thereupon contacted the stockists/importers and enquired with them whether they have sold the goods found in the appellants premises. They in their statements recorded under Section 108 denied having sold the goods in question to the appellants. The Commissioner in the impugned orders mainly relied on the fact that the appellants could not explain the possession of the imported goods nor were they in a position to explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 111 of the Customs Act is that the department would be deemed to have discharged its burden if it adduces only so much evidence, circumstantial or direct, as is sufficient to raise a presumption in its favour with regard to the existence of the fact sought to be proved. The Commissioner also relied on the Supreme Court s decision second cited above to say that the customs authorities discharged the burden cast on them by falsifying any material particulars of the story put forward by the appellants. The court also held that it cannot be disputed that a false denial could be relied on by the customs authorities for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the goods had been illegally imported. 4. The Commissioner also di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of case law that in respect of non-notified goods to say that the burden to prove that the goods are smuggled is on the department; that if the case of the department is that the goods in question were imported under DEEC and were diverted to local market, the proper authority to adjudicate the case would be the Commissioner in charge of the port through which the goods were imported and not the Commissioner, Mumbai; and that in any view of the matter, the department failed to establish that the goods were smuggled into the country and on the basis of mere presumptions and assumptions the goods cannot be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence, circumstantial or direct, as is sufficient to raise presumption in its favour with regard to the existence of the fact sought to be proved. The circumstances prevailing in the present appeals suggest that the department is able to raise a presumption in its favour with regard to the existence of the fact sought to be proved when the owners of the goods refused to divulge correctly as to where they got the goods from. That the goods are of foreign origin is not denied by the appellants. The Supreme Court also observed in Kanungo s case that a false denial could be relied by the customs authorities for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the goods had been illegally imported. Thus, when the appellants claim that they have p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try in contravention of the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force are liable to confiscation. It is not necessary that the goods should be prohibited from import under FTDR for them to be confiscated under Section 111(d). We observe that if the goods are brought by a person who does not have an I.E. code, they are liable to confiscation. In this case since the allegation is that the goods have been removed without payment of customs duty, they are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. 9. The Commissioner imposed various penalties on the persons from whose possession the goods had been seized under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. It is now well established that mens rea is an important ingred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
