9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Meena, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. The appeal is directed against confiscation of 70 kgs. of Chinese Origin Silk Yarn and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a job worker engaged in the twisting of silk yarn, at Varanasi. His premises were searched by Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 70 kgs. as evidenced by the documents viz. Panchnama and statement of the appellant relevant to the present case, whereas the appellant, in his statement dated 21-9-95 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, has stated the actual quantity in balance, as on the date of seizure, i.e. 21-8-95, to be 73.025 kgs. The situation becomes more confusing when the statement of the appellant is tallied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turing Co-operative Society Ltd. in the circumstances of the instant case delineated above. Thus, from above it is apparent that 70 kgs. of silk yarn seized from the residential premises of the appellant is a separate quantity and is different from the quantity of silk yarn claimed by the appellant to have been received for twisting and also that appellant fails to putforth any justification regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances in which he is in possession of the yarn in question. The record of the sendor Co-operative Society also confirmed the appellant's explanation. There is also no material on record indicating that the yarn in question had been brought into the country in violation of any law. Only goods imported "contrary to any prohibition" are liable to confiscation under 111(d). 7. In the above circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
