2017 (1) TMI 1535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om his possession are not smuggled goods. Therefore, the burden of proving that the seized goods are smuggled goods would lie upon the Customs authorities. No such evidence has been brought on records by Customs authorities to substantiate that the goods seized from the appellant are smuggled goods - there is no justification for confiscation of such goods u/s 111 of the CA, 1962 - also the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts. The appellant s premises were searched on 5-1-2012 in connection with the investigation and 3,950 pieces of DJV ULTRA brand mobile batteries were found, which were seized. In the statement recorded by Customs Officers, Shri Virender Kumar Ahuja, Proprietor stated that he had purchased 22,000 pieces of the above mobile batteries from Mr. Steven without bill and paid for it in cash. However, he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority below. 4. From the impugned order, we find that the only reason alleged against the appellant for confiscation of the mobile batteries seized at their premises is that the appellant could not produce any documentary evidence for their legal importation and possession of these goods. 5. Section 123 of the Customs Act, provides for notifying goods in respect of which the burden of p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X