9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisionally. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/s. Swiss Gallery under Section 112(b) and Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Asaraf Patel, the partner of the firm, under the same Section. Shri Ashraf Patel died during the pendency of the appeal. His brother Shri Aftab Patel, the legal heir was allowed to pursue the appeal. At the out set we observe that wrist watches were notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the pens were not. 2. The impugned goods were seized from the premises of the appellants. The Commissioner in the impugned order examined the various contentions raised by the respondent before him in regard to the origin of the goods, and finally concluded that the goods are smuggled into the country. The Commissioner examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. This assertion was not supported by any bills of entry under which such components were cleared. A bland assertion of this kind does not constitute evidence. The argument that the watches were locally assembled was rightly rejected by the Commissioner. In respect of 12 watches the appellants claimed before the Commissioner that they were duplicate watches and were not a part of 39 watches procured from M/s. Dream Time Watch Co., Bangalore as originally claimed while replying to the show cause notice. Granting that they were so, we observe that even duplicate watches can be smuggled. The burden cast on the person from whose possession notified goods are seized is not discharged if he/she merely claims that the goods under seizure are dupl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants to explain as to how they came to possess them. The appellants could not come out with any plausible explanation. The pens in questions were rightly confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. 6. The Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. He seemed to have determined the value as Rs. 7,50,000/- provisionally. The reasons for doing so are not known. We observe that a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs is excessive. Since no allegation is made that either the firm or its partner have smuggled the goods in question, we find that a reduction in the penalty imposed on the firm is called for. Penalty on Ashraf Patel abates. The order of the Commissioner is modified, the appeals are partly allowed in the following terms :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
