2013 (1) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at customs authorities can seize any goods anywhere in India alleging that the goods have been first exported from countries other than India to Nepal and then imported into India from Nepal For confiscating the goods Revenue should have discharged the burden to prove that the goods were exported to Nepal from a country other than India and then the goods were imported into India from Nepal. In both the matters Revenue has failed to discharge the onus. The reason that the mandi receipt and the Railway Receipt were in the names of a firm not found at the address given does not discharge this onus Revenue is not challenging the appellant’s ownership of the goods inasmuch as penalty has been imposed on the appellant. If the appellant had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant is that betel nut is not an item notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. So the burden of proving that the goods were smuggled is on Revenue. Revenue has not discharged this burden. 3. The appellant bought the goods which were of West Bengal Origin. The goods were bought by the appellants from market at Alipurdwar Regulated Market and they booked it from New Jalpaiguri to Mughulsarai by train. Because of clerical mistake at the railway booking office their name was wrongly entered in the RR. They submit that on this item there is no restriction regarding purchasing it, possessing it or transporting it. The entire case made by Revenue is without any legal basis. 4. The Counsel has a grievance that Revenue has relied on an op .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted from Nepal to India. None of these two facts are proved. An expert s opinion that the goods are not produced in India does not mean that the above two facts are proved. The expertise of the expert itself is challenged. But I think that for taking a decision in this appeal I do not have to examine this issue. Notification No. 9/96-Cus., dated 22-1-1996 cannot be interpreted to mean that customs authorities can seize any goods anywhere in India alleging that the goods have been first exported from countries other than India to Nepal and then imported into India from Nepal. The reasons based on which the seizing officers came to the conclusion that the goods were smuggled into India from Nepal are not apparent. However I do not want to go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X