9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garments. In follow-up action, 5 bales and 16 boras containing such garments were also recovered from the godown belonging to M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills. In the subsequent adjudicating proceedings, the Deputy Collector held that the circumstances and manner of removal showed the goods were intended for sale in violation of Customs law. No import of second hand clothing has been permitted for several years and the garments seized could not have been validly imported. No proof could also be produced by the persons from whom the goods were recovered to establish valid import. He accordingly confiscated the goods under Sec. 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 but permitted redemption on payment of a fine of ₹ 4000/- and also imposed a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thes come within the term Rags . It was for the department to rebut the evidence of purchase from M/s. Adya Industries. The goods do not also fall under Sec. 123, so it has been wrongly held that the appellants should substantiate their claim regarding legal import. A number of consignments seized by the Customs have been released, subject to the condition that they be mutilated to the satisfaction of the customs authorities and there has been discrimination in this case. 5. The appellant was heard on 17-1-1983. Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate, reiterated the above contentions. He cited the Nagesh Hosiery Mills case where it was held that rag had not been defined in the import policy and its meaning in commercial parlance had to be adop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilated and unserviceable woollen hosiery (rags) has been used. The Board had accepted the logic of the Nagesh Hosiery Mills decision. 7. The Tribunal observes that in this case the burden of proving that the seized goods have been imported in violation of any restriction or prohibition rests on the department. The evidence regarding lawful import was cited and it was for the department to controvert it. Because the named, importer failed to respond to the show cause notice, the appellant cannot be held responsible, ignoring the powers of the department to investigate, summon and otherwise enquire. Under his order No. 55/76 cited by Counsel, release of similar goods was allowed by the Deputy Collector, because the party named the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
