9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate for the Appellant. Shri D.P. Mukhopadhyay, SDR for the Respondent. [Order] - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 03/2007 TS (Deptt) dt. 17.7.2007. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the officers of M P intercepted three bundles arrived at CST railway station on 14.12.2005 from Hyderabad. On examination of the said bundles it was found that they were having Indian as well as foreign goods. The goods of Indian origin and the goods of foreign origin for which proper documents were produced were released to the claimants. The remaining goods were seized under panchanama. The appellants herein vide letter dt.24.2.2006 through Dongri Police Station claimed the ownership of the 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority. Hence this appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the goods, which were, seized i.e. 32 nos. of digital video cameras, digital cameras and other goods were non notified goods. It is her submission that provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act will not apply to this case. It was submitted that since the goods are non-notified, there is no case for absolute confiscation of these goods. It was submitted that goods which were confiscated being non notified goods, are not liable for confiscation as Department has not proved to the goods here of smuggled nature she relies upon the decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Ganesh Enterprises as reported at [2006 (199) E.L.T. 208 (B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said letter of Dongri police station are 30 nos of digital cameras of Sony and national made and 400 electric cells. However, the goods under seizure included 32 cameras of Panasonic, Nikon and sony make. There was not a single camera of national make. It is also observed that the appellant claimed that the goods were purchased in Chennai. However, the consignments came from Hyderabad. No. documentary evidence has been produced to show that the goods were purchased in Chennai, transported to Hyderabad and then to Mumbai. The flow of events and behaviors of the appellant does not appear to be normal or natural, therefore his conduct indicates that the appellant, by claiming the goods without making any personal appearance at any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not so all unclaimed seizures would be claimed by such persons probably may at the same time. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the goods are of foreign origin, no licit documents of their purchase or the importation is produced and that the appellant is not the legitimate owner of the goods, but has come forward to claim the goods to serve the ulterior motives of real operators who are behind the scene. Obviously the appellant is aiding and abetting person concerned with the impugned goods and is therefore liable to penalty. Thought the goods are not notified and it is for the department to prove that they are of smuggled origin, the department cannot release them to anyone claiming them without conclusivel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
