9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r>Prabha Sridevan and M. Sathyanarayanan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Udaya Banu, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Prabha Sridevan, J.]. - The substantial question of law on which the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been admitted is thus : "In the absence of any legal material available in the hands of the respondent to show either he had an authority to import the contraband involved in this case or he had paid customs duty on the contraband of foreign origin in his possession, has not the Tribunal committed an error of law in setting aside the order of confiscation; penalty and making a provision for the redemption relief?" 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The Police Personnel attached to B-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;The confiscation of goods and the vehicle was ordered and redemption, fine and penalty was imposed. On appeal, the Commissioner, set aside the imposition of redemption, fine and confiscation of vehicle and reduced the penalty with regard to the goods. Against that, the respondent went before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that since the goods were seized by the police and then handed over to the Customs on the direction of the Magistrate, the judgment in Gian Chand & Others v. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1365 (S.C.) would squarely apply. Further, since the goods seized were taken from the possession of the police, the provision of law with regard to the burden of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, there is no fresh seizure under the Customs Act. It would, therefore, follow that, having regard to the circumstances in which the gold came into the possession of the Customs authorities, the term of S.178A which requires a seizure under the Act were not satisfied and consequently that provision cannot be availed of to throw the burden of proving that the gold was not smuggled, on the accused."
5. In this case, the accused lost possession of the goods when the police took custody of it, so there is no fresh seizure under the Customs Act. There is no question of law much less any substantial question arises for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
