9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r quashing the orders passed by the Collector of Customs on 25-1-1991 and the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 7-4-1995 and directions to deliver the goods to the petitioner or to the Railway Authorities. The petitioner claimed that by virtue of certain Railway receipts, the Ball Bearings purchased from Calcutta should have been released in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly these Ball Bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of ownership of the goods and came to the conclusion that in the absence of any documentary evidence of ownership of the goods by Shri Rajeev Kumar Aggrawal (Writ Petitioner) and in view of the discrepancy in the variety of Ball Bearings claimed by him, the claim of ownership by the petitioner could not be accepted. He therefore, ordered absolute confiscation. The appeal filed by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the opinion that the contention of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner is well founded. On the finding that the goods are not notified and that the department was unable to prove that they were smuggled goods, the only conclusion that the Collector could have come to was that there was no proof that the goods were smuggled goods. Therefore, he had no jurisdiction to order confiscation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods nor that he was entitled to possession from the Railways. The Customs Authorities will restore the goods to the Northern Railways and it will be for the petitioner to make an appropriate claim before the Railway Authorities to decide the claim of the Writ Petitioner in accordance with Law. 5. Therefore, the goods and other documents including the Railway receipts, if any received from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
