9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gold (FMG) Biscuits from the bank lockers of the first appellant Shri L. Eswara Reddy and his wife Mrs. L. Vijaya Lakshmi the second appellant on 10-4-1997. However they were handed over to the customs and subsequently, the customs officers seized them on 2-6-1997 under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the impugned FMG biscuits were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. After taking statements of various persons during the course of investigation, Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants for confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (D & R) Act, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded over to the Customs on 2-6-1997. The Department issued Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act on 7-11-1997 but the same was dispatched by speed post only on 28-11-1997 and the Department in the original Show Cause Notice did not invoke Section 123 of the Customs Act. Therefore, they issued a Corrigendum on 1-12-1997. He made the point that the Show Cause Notice is clearly time barred, as the goods were originally seized in April 1997 and the Show Cause Notice has been issued beyond the period of six months. The Corrigendum issued in the present case is not admissible because it changes the character of the notice entirely. As per the Customs Act, the Corrigendum can be issued only for arithmetical errors and it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (157) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Chennai). (b) Navneet Goswami v. CC, Patna - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 590 (Tri.-Cal.) He said that the Adjudicating Authority has not accepted the documentary evidence produced by the appellant to show that the impugned goods were given by the family members. In view of the above submissions, he requested the Bench to allow the appeals. 6. The learned SDR took us through the adjudication order and urged that the appellants were not in a position to account for all the gold seized from them. He said that in respect of 14 biscuits, 4 dollars and one biscuit piece weighing 350.50 grams, there is absolutely no explanation from any of the concerned person. He also said that the Show Cause Notice has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -law of G. Sumitra Devi and husband of Smt. L. Vijaya Lakshmi. The rest of the gold under seizure was gifted by Smt. Sumitra Devi to her daughter-in-law Smt. G. Sudha Madhuri, wife of Shri G. Pratap Reddy (son of Smt. G. Sumitra Devi) who in turn kept in the bank locker of Smt. L. Vijaya Lakshmi. The Adjudicating Authority has not accepted the above version. According to the Adjudicating Authority, the defence of the notice is totally fabricated. In our view, since the initial burden to prove that the goods are smuggled is on the Department's, the department has a responsibility to come out with positive evidence and establish the source of procurement of the gold, especially when the explanation of the appellants is not accepted. The depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
