9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri S. N. Mitra, A.C. (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary Briefly stated the facts of the case are that The Police Officer of Palasi Police Station, District:- Araria, Bihar on 08.06.2011 intercepted one Truck nearly 15Km from Indo Nepal Border loaded with Cut Betel-Nuts and one Travera vehicle escorting the same along with six persons in the vehicle. The Police Officer on 09.06.2011 handed over the detained goods and the persons to the Customs Officers. Thereafter, Smt. Sahana Khatun claimed the ownership of the seized Betel-Nuts by submitting Purchase Bills. The Customs Officers made a thorough investigation and recorded statement of various persons. A Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2011 was issued propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at she had also paid the requisite fee of the Regulated Market Committee. It has also submitted that one tavera vehicle and a Swaraz Tractor loaded with some Betel Nuts was also detained lying in the Cinema Hall Seemanchal Picture Palace . The entire seizure and confiscation of the goods is wholly on the basis of assumption and presumption. There is no evidence that the goods were illegally imported. In any event, it is submitted that non-appearance in response to the Summons would not amount to smuggled nature of the goods. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The Learned Counsel referred to the Case Laws. 5. The Learned A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cinema hall where more betel nuts were found stored were also seized. I find that Ld. Adjudicator considered the documents produced by the Appellant No. 1 which showed their origin from Cooch Behar and West Bengal. He also considered the documents produced by Appellant No. 1 about his firm but same were found not genuine, on enquiry. 13. One of the contention of the Appellant No. 1 is that the goods are not notified and department has not proved the goods as smuggled or of third country origin. I, however, agree with the Ld. Adjudicator s finding that there are circumstantial evidence i.e. the cut betel nuts were not fresh as compared to those grown in West Bengal and as per the invoice transport receipt which were produced late ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
