9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trade opinion which have not been accepted by the Tribunal in various precedent decisions - no reason to uphold the confiscation of the goods - in favour of assessee. - Customs Appeal No. 523 of 2011-SM - Final Order No. 1171/2012-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 9-8-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate for the Appellants Shri Sanjay Jain, SDR for the Respondent Per Archana Wadhwa(for the Bench): After hearing both sides, I find that officer of Customs (Prev) containing 15 bags of Cut betel nut on 1.9.09 lying with the parcel office, Railway Station, Mugal Sarai for further investigation. Said goods were examined by officers on 4.9.09 and were found to be 1200 Kg. of betel nut totally valued of Rs.60,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterating the same very submissions which were made in the statement. 4. The original adjudicating authority, in his impugned order, observed that the goods were detained and subsequently seized on 4.9.089 and nobody came forward to claim the ownership. The claim was made by the appellant for the first time in the 3rd week of September, 2009. He observed that the railway receipt produced by the appellant bears the name of the consignor as N.K. Saha and that of consignee as Sonali Traders-MGS (Mughalsarai). The complete address of consignee was not given under the said RR. Inasmuch as the consignee address has been shown as Mughalsarai and not of Varansasi where the applicant is situated, RR cannot said to be the documentary evidence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... station receipt is examined along with money receipt produced by the appellants, it becomes clear that the payment for the said 15 bags of betul nuts was made by Ms. Sonali Traders. 8. The Revenue argument that the goods were sent by Shri N K Saha on commission basis as such Sonali Traders cannot be held to be owner of 15 bags cannot be appreciated inasmuch as it is the business arrangement between M/s. Sonali Traders and Shri N K Saha the commission agent of M/s. Sonali Traders. The money receipt clearly reflects the purchase of the goods by Sonali Trader. Further, the tax invoice produced on record clearly establish that the goods were purchased by M/s. Sonali Traders. The declaration No.01 also reflects upon the name of the consigne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apart from the statement of Shri Deepak Kumar. Such experts of trade opinion have not been accepted by the Tribunal in various precedent decisions. One such reference can be made to Tribunal s decision in the case of Kamakheya Trade Company vs. CC, Patna reported as reported as [2002 (143) ELT 568 (Tri-Kolkata)] and Laxmi Narayan Somani vs. Commissioner of Customs, Patna reported as [2003 (156 ) ELT 131 (Tri-Kol)]. As such, in the absence of any conclusive evidence reflecting upon the foreign original of the goods and their smuggled character, I find no reason to uphold the confiscation of the goods. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. (Pronounced in the open cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
