9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re that on 04.04.2018, officers of SSB intercepted two Vehicles bearing Registration No.BR31G/8020 and BR22G/5147 and they were found to contain 8500 kg. of Rahar Dal and 8500 kg. of Urad, collectively valued at Rs.7,65,000/-. The SSB officers handed over the same to Customs Circle, Bettiah on 05.04.2018 where the goods and the said Vehicles were seized by the Customs Officers on the reasonable belief that the said consignment of Rahar Dal and Urad were smuggled in from Nepal. 2.1. Md. Serajul, proprietor of M/s. Bismillah Traders, situated at Khamiya, P.O. Inerwa, District-West Champaran [hereinafter referred to as the "appellant"] having the GST as well as the PAN Number for the Firm, claimed ownership of the said goods. They submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 03/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2020-21 dated 29.04.2020. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. It is the contention of the appellant that the learned Commissioner has failed to consider the fact that the appellant had purchased the said goods from the farmers of Jaitiya Panchayat, which is located within the territory of India and transportation was made within the permissible limit in the country; further the appellant clearly stated the names of the farmers from whom he had purchased the goods, which are agricultural produce. It is submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the goods are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.1. We observe that these goods are not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and hence the onus is on the Department to prove that the goods are smuggled in nature. The Department has failed to produce any evidence to establish the smuggled nature of the goods. Accordingly, we hold that the goods are not liable for confiscation under Sections 111(b) & (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As the goods are not liable for confiscation, the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is also not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. 8. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the confiscation of the goods viz. Rahar Dal (8500 kgs.) and Urad (8500 kgs.) collectively valued at Rs.7,65, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
