9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar The present appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 04/Commissioner/Lucknow/2013 dated 09.10.2013 passed by Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow. The said Order-in-Original is a common Order-in-Original passed in respect of all the above stated appellants. Therefore, the above stated appeals are taken together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the officers of DRI intercepted two trucks at a place near Itonja on Sitapur-Lucknow highway at about 8:00 AM on 14 January, 2013. The trucks were having vehicle number MP 17 HH-2492 and MP 17 HH-2092 on carrying out search of the said trucks it was found by the officers that the said two trucks put together were carrying 40,000 kgs of SPLIT Betel Nuts contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 has stated that he reached Transport Nagar, Kanpur on 22.12.2012 and drove the said truck to Palia, alongwith a driver who showed the route. On 23.12.2012, late in the night, Betel Nuts which were brought from Nepal were loaded in the truck at a godown in Sampurna Nagar situated on way to Nepal and then he drove the loaded truck from Sampurna Nagar to Kanpur on 23.12.2012. He further stated that in December, 2012 and January, 2013, he transported Betel Nuts from Sampurna Nagar to Kanpur and also stated that every time Betel Nuts brought from Nepal was got loaded by Nepalese labours only in the mid-night. The officers also found certain markings such as '111 Kolkata IN Transit to Nepal' on few of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the seized quantity of betel nuts should not be confiscated under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty under Section 112(a) of the same Act should not be imposed on them. Further all the appellants were called upon to show cause as to why penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed upon them. In reply to the show cause notice Shri Jagpal Singh has stated that he had purchased 680 bags of Betel Nuts from Sudarshan Gupta proprietor of M/s Gupta Trading Company, Sampurna Nagar vide sale deed dated 10.12.2012 and that on 13.01.2013 he dispatched the said goods to M/s B.K. Spices, Kanpur under Invoices Nos. 001 and 002 both dated 13.01.2013 and Bilty Nos. 14281 and 14282 dated 13.01.2013 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained under force and that he had submitted an affidavit to Additional Director General DRI, Lucknow, retracting his statement dated 14.01.2013. Shri Vinod Kumar Kesarwani through his letter dated 15.07.2013 submitted his reply to the show cause notice wherein he has stated that the officers of DRI seized the goods he was transporting through the truck and forced him to put his signature on the papers and those statements i.e. statements dated 14.01.2013 were not voluntary statements, therefore, he had filed affidavit and sent it to Additional Director General DRI, Lucknow retracting those statements. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original dated 09.10.2013. The finding on the said betel nuts is deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly asked for cross examination of the trade experts with documentary evidence of their qualification, their Exim Number, Import Certificate, all Bills of Entries of Import of Betel Nuts from Indonesia for the last 5 years and invoices of transactions to know their competence on whose opinion it was concluded that the goods were of third country origin and that no such documents were made available nor cross examination on said traders was allowed and therefore, the Principles of Natural Justice were violated as a result the impugned Order-in-Original, is not sustainable. (iv) Since the onus to establish that the goods were of smuggled nature was not discharged by Revenue the confiscation was irregular and therefore confiscation of the ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which route. However, DRI has not preferred to do the same and that it clearly indicates that the goods were not brought from Nepal and therefore, officers of DRI have not chosen to proceed in that direction for investigation. They have also contended that the Original Authority has held that the goods were brought through route which was not specified without knowing the route through which such goods must have been brought which indicates that the finding is totally presumptive. 5. The learned AR has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 6. Having considered the rival contentions we find force in the arguments put forth by counsels for the appellants. We find that the Original Authority has taken into consideration the statements d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
