9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alued at Rs. 3,38,088/- from M/s. Priti Silk, Varanasi under Bill No. MRS/16 dated 29-4-2002. The appellant also purchased 293.99 Kgs. of Mulbery Raw Silk Yarn valued at Rs. 3,38,088/- from the said concern under Bill No. MRS/18 dated 30-4-2002 and 19273 dated 29-4-2002 who in turn booked consignment to the appellant by train under R.R. No. 468318 dated 1-5-2002. The representative of M/s. Krishna Cargo Movers accompanied the goods to Varanasi to Bhagalpur. At Patna Rly. Station, the officers of Customs unloaded the consignment. The representative of M/s. Krishna Cargo Movers produced the relevant documents in connection with the transportation of the goods from Varanasi to Bhagalpur but the officers did not give any cognizance to those doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant submitted in proper challan issued by consignor not having dated Sl. Nos. and issued on two different dates whereas the consignment were booked on the same day. There was a mis-declaration of goods on Rly. Receipt. The R.R. does not contain company addresses nor any proof of payment was produced. Therefore, he submits that the goods have been rightly confiscated and he prays that the appeal may be dismissed. 3. The Silk Yarn is not a notified item under Section 23 of Customs Act. Therefore, the burden of proof that the goods were smuggled is on Department/Revenue. The Revenue must prove that the goods were notified or must have been imported from a foreign territory in a clandestine manner. It was held in the case of C.C. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Kolkata and Chennai port under proper Bill of Entry. There may be some discrepancy in weight or numbers but it is not established by such discrepancy that the goods were imported in a clandestine manner by the appellant. Failure to show legal acquisition of the yarn in question cannot improve the Revenue s case and insisted upon the same would defeat the very purpose of not notifying under provision of Section 123 as held in the case of Motiur Rahman Others v. C.C. (Prev.), Patna reported in 2001 (47) RLT 353. Similar view was taken in case of Dhun Darabshaw Randeria v. Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 1136 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Chandrakant U. Shah Others v. Commr. of Customs, Mumbai reported in 1999 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
