2005 (5) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eals which have been preferred against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal, the appellants have contested the imposition of penalty of Rs. 8,000/- each on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the seized goods (camera, lenses of foreign origin) being non-notified goods, no presumption about their smuggled nature could be drawn, rather it was for the Revenue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the conductor. These goods were allegedly delivered to them at Sunauli by some representative of Satya Narain Sharma, for transportation to Delhi. But name of that person remains undisclosed. No statement of Satya Narain Sharma was also recorded who allegedly smuggled the goods from Nepal. The passengers were also present in the bus at that time, but no statement of any one was recorded. These goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X