9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .B. Nair, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the department has not been able to establish the impugned goods to be smuggled goods. It is also contended that these are non notified freely importable goods. Reliance has also been placed on the following three case laws on behalf of the appellants :- (i) Phoenix Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellants is that the goods in question are easily importable against a REP licence and are being sold in India. It is agreed that the goods may be easily importable against a REP licence but the question is whether the goods in the instant case were imported by the appellant against a REP licence. The answer is NO . That being the case, the question of giving the benefit when the goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. on the appellant. The facts of the case also show that the goods when valued at the appropriate time were of Rs. 34,26,950/-. It is not a case of a small seizure. Such a huge quantity unaccounted, being sold in the market without bills and vouchers, clearly does not give any indication about the innocence of the appellants. The words prohibited goods and smuggling are defined as under : 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at considering the circumstances of seizure, statements recorded and the fact that the licit acquisition of the impugned goods is not explained by production of any purchase documents from legal sources, the lower authorities have reasonably concluded that the impugned goods are smuggled and therefore, the action taken by them also is justified under the law. I also find that the penalty imposed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
