9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against the impugned Order whereby the confiscation of the goods in question was set aside. Contention of the Revenue is that the goods are liable for confiscation, as they were smuggled into India. The goods in question are telephones, portable TVs, ball pens etc. and other miscellaneous items of foreign origin. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Bhoormull held that in cases of non-notified goods, the burden is on the Revenue to establish that the goods are smuggled into India. As in the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the goods in question were smuggled into India, I find no infirmity in the impugned Order and hence, the Appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
