9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a common order and therefore both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that on 15-12-2004 the Customs Officers of Bahraich intercepted a truck No. UP-71/A-6821 at Risra crossing on Nanpara Bahraich Road. The truck was loaded with fresh Ginger 60 quintals in 95 bags. The driver and the person accompanying the goods produced the documents of Krishi U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine of ₹ 40,000/- and ₹ 30,000/- on seized goods and trucks respectively. He also imposed penalty on various persons of ₹ 5,000/- each. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to ₹ 2,000/- each. 3. The appellant No. 1 Shri Dilip Kumar is owner of the goods and appellant No. 2 Mohd. Asim Khan is the owner of the seized truck. 4. The learned advocate on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals). He submits that the driver of the truck in his statement admitted that the goods had been brought from Nepal. He further submits that the appellants failed to produce any documents in support of bonafide importation. Therefore, both the authorities below are rightly confiscated the goods and trucks. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, it is seen that the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the documents of the appellant No. 1. The seized goods are not notified items under Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962. There is no evidence produced by the revenue to establish that the seized goods are smuggled goods. I find that the authorities below did not dispute the fact that the fresh Ginger and other vegetables products are cultivated around Mihinpurwa. So, confiscation of the fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
