9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to prove smuggling of non-notified goods lies on the Department. The appellants have given cogent explanation along with evidence of import of the goods, through licit route and the same have not been found to be untrue. Further, revenue have rejected the evidences produced, on flimsy ground which is not tenable. I find that the whole case of revenue is based on presumptions and no evidence have been led as to the allegation of smuggling. Mere failure on the part of the appellant to produce some document to the satisfaction of the Customs Authority does not ipso-facto lead to inevitable conclusion that the goods are smuggled. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/70657/2016-CU[SM] - A/70415/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, the DRI officers took possession from the Railway Authorities and brought the goods to their office at Lucknow. Details as to consignor and consignee were sought from Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway (Sealdah), vide letter dated 22 nd March, 2013. But no communication was received from railway. After sometime on 14 th July, 2013. A written communication was received by DRI from appellant - M/s Om Merchants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi regarding the ownership of 52 packets of readymade garments, without support of any documents showing licit import or procurement of the said goods. On receipt of the said communication the appellant was summoned to appear with all necessary documents in support of their claim. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-13 dated 5 th March, 2013 was made for 52 bags. In the tax invoice dated 5 th March, 2013 submitted by the appellant, buyer was mentioned as M/s GTB Traders, New Delhi, whereas on the face of carrier documents (RR/PW Bill No.146537) consignor and consignee of the goods were same i.e. the appellant - M/s Om Merchants Pvt. Ltd. It appeared to Revenue that on the basis of documents submitted by appellant, the same do not cover the seized goods and on the belief that the said readymade garments one of Bangladesh origin valued at ₹ 15,30,225/- have been illegally imported into India from Bangladesh through off route in violation of Notification No.63/94-CUS (NT) dated 21 st November, 1994, as amended, issued under Section 7(1) (c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel urges that it is not disputed that the appellant/importer had imported consignment of readymade garments from Bangladesh vide Bill of Entry dated 8 th November, 2012 18 th October, 2012. The goods were declared to be of inferior quality. The appellant had purchased the goods in lot. The main reason for order of confiscation by the courts below is that the goods did not match with the description in the two Bills of Entry. The consignment of the goods, as imported was a stock lot, and thus, in the Bill of Entry and in the commercial invoice the goods were declared to be of inferior quality. From the land customs station the goods were brought to appellant s, Kolk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Cause Notice is time barred as the goods were effectively seized by the customs authority on 18/19th March, 2013, when the possession was taken over from the Railway Authority and the goods were brought to the DRI Office at Lucknow. The Show Cause Notice has been served after more than 6 months in violation of Sections 124 read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order with consequential benefits. 5. The ld. A. R. for Revenue have relied on the impugned order and also the findings in the Order-in-Original. He further points out to the finding of ld. Commissioner (Appeals), where it is observed that as per the Parcel way Bill dated 7 th March, 2013, issued by Railways, found i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the evidences produced, on flimsy ground which is not tenable. I find that the whole case of revenue is based on presumptions and no evidence have been led as to the allegation of smuggling. I further observe that if possessors of non-notified goods are asked to explain pocession, distinction between notified and non-notified goods gets blurred. The allegation in the impugned order that the appellants could not give proper evidence of transport of goods from the land customs stations to Kolkata, being a distance of 800 kms., does not lead to conclusion that the goods were imported without paying customs duty from outside India, through off route. I, further, hold that mere failure on the part of the appellant to produce some document t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
