9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t gate of the goods delivery yard on the Ajmeri Gate side of the New Delhi Railway Station along with some packages. On enquiry, he told the officers that the said packages had arrived from Chennai by Grant Trunk Express on 26-11-2000 and contained some textile material. He however, could not produce any document pertaining to those goods. Those packages were opened and found to contain Textile Fabric with Korean marking valued at Rs. 18,18,200/-. The goods were seized as Shri Jabbar Singh could not produce any document in support of legal import acquisition/possession of the same. 3. During investigation, Shri Jabbar Singh's statement was recorded who disclosed that the seized goods belonged to the appellant Shri Agha Khan. Thereafter, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Raghunathan, Proprietor of M/s. Mahara Jothi. The Commissioner after adjudication, ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the appellant, and of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri C. Gopiram of M/s. Raika Impex, but dropped the proceedings against the other noticees, named above. 4. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant only. I have heard both the sides. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the goods had been seized under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act on the ground that these were of foreign origin. But, there is nothing on the record to suggest if these were prohibited goods. The goods are textile fabrics available in the market for free trade. No presumption under the law could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss-examined by the appellant. Moreover, he did not dispute the issuance of the invoice to the appellant in the name of M/s. Agha Fabrics. His version that the invoice was issued without the sale of the goods for obliging the appellant, could not attach any credence as it does not appeal to the reasons that he issued the invoice without the sale of the goods. Moreover, he himself demanded the payment of the goods from the appellant vide letter dated 12-1-2001. This letter had not been denied by him in his statement. Therefore, the plea of the appellant of having purchased the goods from the firm, M/s. Raika Impex could not be brushed aside by the adjudicating authority in the face of documentary evidence produced by him to substantiate the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
