9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igin and must have been imported to India in a manner other than as prescribed by Customs Act so as to fall within the ambit of Section 111 of the Act of 1962. Appeal under Section 130 of the Act of 1962 has to be maintained only when substantial questions of law will arise for determination. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Tribunal had not returned the finding regarding genuineness of the claim of the so called owner is in the realm of evidence so cannot be looked into in this appeal because it does not constitute substantial question of law. Thus, no substantial question of law arise for determination. That being so, appeal under Section 130 of the Act of 1962 is not worth to be entertained is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ign origin, as such, liable for confiscation. 3. The Commissioner of Customs (Prev) North Eastern Regions, Shillong vide his detailed order-in-original dated 03.01.2017 concluded as under:- 35. I order absolute confiscation of the betel nuts of foreign origin valued at ₹ 60,48,080/- (Rupees sixty lakhs forty eight thousand and eight only) seized vide Case No.11/CL/IMP/CUS/HQRS. PREV/SH/15-16 dated 15-1-2016 under Section 111 (b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of any genuine claimant/owner of the said goods. Since the said contraband has already been sold in public auction and the proceeds thereof amounting to ₹ 66,51,140/- (Rupees sixty six lakhs fifty one thousand one hundred forty) only was deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Shri Tapan Biswas, Shri Samir Ghosh, Shri Shyam Mondal and Shri Barun Chakraborty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 40. I impose a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Rajesh Lapang under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, three appeals were filed before the CESTAT (Tribunal), learned Tribunal allowed the appeals and has set aside the order-in-original dated 03.01.2017 by holding as under:- There is absolutely nothing on record to even remotely suggest that such goods are of foreign origin. Betel nuts is also not a commodity notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence, the onus is on the Department to prove that the goods are of for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scated goods have been sold in auction and sale proceeds amounting to ₹ 66,51,140/- (Rupees sixty six lakhs fifty one thousand and one hundred forty) have been deposited into State Bank of India, Guwahati. Once the order of the adjudicating authority regarding confiscation is set aside, then as a necessary corollary, question would arise to whom the sale proceeds of the seized goods are to be paid. 8. Mr. N Mozika, learned counsel for the respondent was pointedly asked as to whether there was any justification for seizure and confiscation when the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Act of 1962, he could not controvert the position that it was for the revenue to discharge the onus of proving the seized goods to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
