9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that they were imported illegally. The seizure is said to have taken place on 7-9-1978. Thereafter the requirement of the show cause notice and other formalities were dispensed with, as in his statement, the junior partner has stated that the case may be adjudicated without a show cause notice. On the basis of the material, the Assistant Collector, Customs, respondent No. 3, on 11-9-1978 held that the seized goods were illegally imported and acquired in violation of the prohibition imposed under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was also held that the said Atchutharama Gupta is liable to penalty under Section 105 of the Customs Act as he was in possession of the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such confiscation under Section 111(d) is bad in law. Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows : "111. CONFISCATION OF IMPROPERLY IMPORTED GOODS, ETC. :- The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation : ) (a) .......................... (b) ............................ (c) .......................... (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any provision, imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force." A perusal of the section, extracted above, makes it clear that for confiscation of the said goods, it must be shown that the goods ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ird persons who may not have had anything to do with the actual import. So long as it is proved that the goods had been imported against the restrictions imposed under Chapter IV, the goods remain liable to confiscation whenever found even if this is long after the import is over and even if they are in possession of persons who had nothing to do with the actual import. It is also well settled by the decisions of this Court that the second part of the penalty relating to any person applies only to a person concerned in the importation or exportation of the goods and does not apply to a person found in possession of the smuggled goods who had nothing to do with the importation or exportation thereof." In the above case it is clearly laid d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the order of penalty is not sustainable. 8. The impugned order, so far as it is relevant, reads as follows : "Government observe that the finding of the appellate authority that there is adequate circumstantial evidence in this case to prove that the impugned articles were illegally imported into India and that they were kept in the shop for sale is correct and accordingly reject the revision application." A perusal of the order shows that the order of respondent No. 2 was sustained by the 1st respondent on the ground that the goods are kept in the shop for sale. This was not the subject-matter of the charge. Further the goods in question were not seized and penalty was not imposed on the ground that the said goods are kept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
