9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has failed to establish that the goods are smuggled in nature and procured by the appellants by illicit means. In fact, the appellants were able to produce the source of procurement of the said goods in question, on which GST has been paid. In that circumstances, the Revenue has failed to establish the discharge the onus to prove the goods are smuggled in nature and are of foreign origin. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned order quo imposing penalties on the appellants. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned order quo imposing penalties on the appellants. - HON BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Arijit Chakraborty , Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he is not the owner of seized Betel Nut and Black Pepper and the Owner of the Betel Nut is Shri Amit Jaiswal [the Appellant No.(3)] of Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, Sh. Anil Bardhman of Nagpur and Sh. Prince of New Delhi, however, he does not know details about their addresses except of Sh. Prince (which is M/s Sai Traders, 2/136, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi), but know the mobile no. of these persons. He further stated that goods were imported into India illegally and was cleared by M/s Amawii Enterprise, Champhai. He was arrested on the same day and released on bail on 27.09.2017 by the learned CJM, Cocher, Silchar. Thereafter, statements of owner of trucks were recorded. 2.2 On 27.09.2017, the officers of DRI searched the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the request was rejected vide letter dated 21.03.2018 by the Commissioner of Customs. 2.5 Therefore, as far as appellant herein is concerned, the allegations against the appellant is, it appears to be a pre-planned conspiracy on the part of appellant with other people in smuggling the said consignment of Betel But and Black Pepper from Myanmar to India through a route not specified under Customs Act, 1962 in violation of the provisions of the Act rendering goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act and the appellant rendered liable to penalty under Section 112(a) and/or Section 112(b) of the Act. The entire allegations is based on the statement of Sh. Samin Uddin. Therefore, a show cause notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged foreign origination of the seized goods in question. Therefore, the goods cannot be confiscated . Consequently, no penalties can be imposed on the appellants. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, submitted that there is some marks on the bags of the black peppers and as per the report of ARDF, Mangalore, he states that these goods are of foreign origin. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On going through the records, we find that it is not conclusively held that the goods are of foreign origin, only it is an opinion that the goods might be of Indonesian origin as per the report of ARDF, Mangalore. For better appreciation, the said report is extracted below : 7. In that circumstances, we hold th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
