9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foreign origin cannot be considered to be licitly imported in compliance with the procedure laid down in the Customs Act, 1962. The goods have, therefore, correctly been held to be liable to confiscation. Penalty - Held that: - unless a person, by an act of omission or commission, can be connected to import of goods that are liable for confiscation, penalty under section 112 will not be lie. The appeal of Shri Jatinder Singh is allowed by setting aside the penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs - Shri Rajendra Jain was the person from whom the goods were seized and the onus of proof regarding legality of imports of the said goods not having been discharged leading to confiscability, the person from whom these were seized cannot claim any mitigatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were seized was required to discharge the burden of proof that the same had been legitimately imported. The original authority, after having examined the various documents, as well as the various statements, arrived at the conclusion that this onus had not been properly discharged and, therefore, the goods were liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. It transpires that the person from whom the goods were seized had claimed to have obtained the same from M/s GS Watch Co., Delhi but the latter denied handling of the said goods at any time. However, Shri Jatinder Singh admitted to facilitating M/s Rajendra Jain Watch, Mumbai by issue of invoice and documents purporting to transport of the same. It is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms (Preventive) [1992 (60) ELT 347 (Tribunal)], Gehri Lal Dagalia v. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur [2002 (148) ELT 736 (Tri.-Del.)] and Telestar Travels Pvt Ltd v. Special Director of Enforcement [2013 (289) ELT 3 (SC)] to support the contention that the burden of proof envisaged in section 123 needs to be established by the person from whom the goods are seized. 6. Having gone through the records, it would appear that the goods in question are covered by section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and that the appellant has been unable to link the importation of the goods with any bill of entry. Accordingly, notwithstanding the proof furnished or nature of the documents produced, all of which merely relate to sale and purchase within Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under section112 may not arise. Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 enables imposition of penalty on those dealing with or having dealt with the goods liable for confiscation under section 111. A clear reading of this provision would establish that the it would necessarily require some connection with goods are liable to confiscation under section 111 to justify imposition of penalty. The allegation of having acted as a mere conduit for generation of documents to show that the watch movements and parts were genuinely imported would not attract the provisions of section 112 which is as under: 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
