9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al') in Appeal Nos. CSM-209/2003 and CSM-210/2003 [2006 (200) E.L.T. 557 (Tri.-Kol.)]. 2. The matter at issue is seizure of three gold bars of high purity weighing 280 grams worth Rs. 1,42,902/- by the Customs Officers at Raxaul in the State of Bihar from one Amar Kishore Prasad, son of Dhruv Prasad Sah, resident of Mitha Bazar, Ramgarhwa, District-East Champaran. After the seizure, on 23rd April, 1996 the said Amar Kishore Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Carrier') gave the statement under Section 108 of the Act. In the said statement the Carrier admitted that the seized gold was given to him for delivery at Muzaffarpur by the owner of the gold one Amar Kishore Prasad of Raxaul (hereinafter referred to as 'the Owner'); that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /PAT/CUS./Appeal/2003 before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal held that the statement dated 23rd April, 1996 given by the Carrier under Section 108 of the Act was later retracted by him on 30th July, 1996. The said statement, therefore, had no evidentiary value. The Tribunal further held that the Customs Department failed to make proper enquiry about the sources from where the Owner had acquired the seized gold. According to the Tribunal, the Customs Department had failed to establish that the seized gold was contraband gold smuggled into the territory of India. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Therefore, the present Appeals. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Rak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se as provided under Section 123 of the Act the burden of proof lay upon the owner of the seized goods. These judgments, therefore, shall have no applicability to the present case. The authority of Superintendent of Customs of search and seizure was not questioned before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. The same cannot be raised in the present Appeals. 8. We have perused the records before us. It does appear that the Owner did submit before the Customs authorities that he had procured the seized gold from his customers at Raxaul. However, he failed to prove the statement. Section 123 of the Act, inter alia, provides that the burden of proof that the seized goods are not the smuggled goods lies on the perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
