9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o him on his leaving India under Section 80 of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant appears to have proposed such option before the officers of Land Customs Station, Sonauli. However, the said option was not exercised and officers seized the goods and detained the passenger - the appellant was entitled for the benefit of provision of Section 80 of CA, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/50877/2015-CU[DB] - C/A/71928/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri B. K. Singh (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr.) AR Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon to show cause as to why said gold should not be confiscated under sub Section (d) of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original. The appellant submitted before the Original Authority that when he was informed that he cannot proceed through Land Customs Station alongwith said quantity of gold appellant proposed to go back to Nepal and bring gold into India by air at Delhi. The appellant submitted before the Original Authority that after hearing said proposal the officers at Land Customs Station discussed that if gold was seized 20% will go to informer and seizing officer will get 20% reward. Subsequently appellant was detained. He also submitted that that he brought 4 k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed gold and forcefully recorded his statements. The appellant through his reply dated 02.09.2014 categorically asked for cross examination of independent witnesses, Superintendent of Customs as well as officers of Police and SSP posted at Land Customs Station, Sonauli on 22.02.2014 and had also asked for C.C.T.V footage of C.C.T.V. installed at Land Customs Station, Sonauli and mentioned by the local Police and that learned Original Authority denied opportunity to the appellant for establishing his defence and moved ahead with preconceived and biased mind. 3.3. In the present case appellant in his defence reply had categorically stated that he had declared the goods before the Customs Authorities at Land Customs Station, Sonauli with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
