9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lued at ₹ 14,634/- seized from the person of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are : pursuant to an information, the residential premises of the appellant was searched by the Customs officers and by reason of the suspicious movement of the appellant, this person was also searched and the Customs officers recovered loose diamonds from the pockets of the trouser worn by him. As the appellant could not produce any documentary evidence in support of the licit acquisition/possession and/or importation of the diamonds so recovered, the Customs officers on the reasonable belief that the diamonds in question were smuggled and liable for confiscation, seized the diamonds. Subsequently, a show cause notice was also issued to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Collector unsuccessfully. Thereafter, he filed an Application for Revision before the Central Government and the said Revision Petition stood statutorily transferred to this Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 6. In this appeal for the appellant, Shri S.K. Roy, Bar-at-Law, urged the following grounds : (1) The seizure is illegal inasmuch as it is not even stated that the diamonds in question are of foreign origin. (2) The Customs officers cannot entertain any reasonable belief that the diamonds in question are smuggled and, therefore, the seizure is illegal and even though diamond is a notified goods, no burden is cast on the appellants to establish that they are licitly imported. (3) The Asstt. Collector as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the diamonds cannot have any reasonable belief that the goods are not liable for confiscation. 10. The goods seized in this case are diamonds. Therefore Section 123 is attracted. Under that section, the burden of proof that the diamonds are not smuggled goods is on the person from whose possession the goods were seized, or on the owner of the goods, if the seizure is made from a person other than the owner. Now, in the instant case, the appellant by reason of his purchase has become the owner of the diamonds. It is from his possession the diamonds were seized. Therefore, the burden is on the appellant to establish that the diamond seized from him are not smuggled goods. The Asstt. Collector as well as the Appellate Collector recorded a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the genuineness of the persons from whom the said diamonds were purchased. In the Show Cause Notice, there is not even an allegation that the diamonds in question are of foreign origin. In the seizure list, the description is given as white stone, suspected to be diamonds . Thus the Customs authorities themselves were not very sure whether the goods seized are diamonds or not. The seized diamonds were not tested by any expert. One of the sellers had made a statement that the diamonds were removed from old ornaments. In the Show Cause Notice, the description of the diamonds seized from the appellant was given. The description reads as under : 1. 1 pc. badly spotted yellow (blackish) diamond. 2. 18 pcs. Brown badly spotted diamon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
