9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent appeal may be summed up thus : (a) On 23rd April, 1995 a vehicle was intercepted by the Customs Officers and it was found that 80 bags of plastic granules of Korean origin contained therein. As a follow up action, the business premises of M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm were searched and 360 bags of plastic graules of foreign origin were sized. (b) During the course of investigation, Sri Rajesh Agarwal, one of the partners of M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm submitted that they had purchased the said imported raw material from M/s. Kaiser Marbles and he also produced document relating to the purchase of those materials in the month of December, 1994. (c) Based upon the above information, further enquiries were made from M/s. Kaise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained a view that the goods in question were not the same that had been imported by M/s. Kamal Co. and accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 20th October, 1995 for confiscation of those goods and for imposition of personal penalty. (f) Those two show cause notices were adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 20th March, 1997 confiscating absolutely the goods under seizure imposing personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 56,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respective on M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm, Sri Rajendra Agarwal, Sri Rajesh Agarwal and Smt. Sukuntala Agarwal respectively. (g) On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner of Customs set aside the order impugned. 3.Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d addressed the fax to the Sales Manager, the Petro Chemical Industrial Company, South Korea with a request to oblige by return fax the date of manufacture of lot numbers II 55735 and J 55736 of polypropylene 1008813 grade. This fax message has been followed up by fax reminder dated 31st May, 1995 by drawing attention of M. Goh, Sales Manager of Petro Chemical Industrial Co. Ltd., South Korea. The Tribunal has further recorded that there is no response with regard to those two messages dated 25th May, 1995 and 31st May, 1995. It is, therefore, apparent that seizure of the impugned goods on the basis of information received by fax message dated 24th May, 1995 was not warranted. 7.The Tribunal has further recorded that on perusal of fax mes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , some documents were obtained by the Indian Customs Officers during their visit to Japan for enquiry and photocopies of those documents did not bear any signature. In such a situation, the Supreme Court held that when the authenticity of photocopies of the documents itself is suspected, the presumption under Section 139(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not available, specially, when the documents had not come from the proper custody or obtained by the Indian Customs from the Japanese counter part. 10.We fail to appreciate how the said decision can be of any help to the learned advocate for the appellant. The said decision rather supports the respondents and in our view, the Tribunal rightly refused to rely upon the fax copy of the docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
