9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sionally, redemption fine of Rs. 8,000/- was imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, tempo bearing registration No. GA-01-Z-3600 valued at Rs. 3.00 lakhs was also ordered to be confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. As the vehicle was provisionally released, redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed. Penalty was imposed on the following under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - 1. M/s. Vinay Exports - Rs. 1.00 lakh 2. Shri Praveen Kumar Jain - Rs. 25,000/- 3. Shri L. Shridhar - Rs. 25,000/- 4. Shri Deepak Jain - Rs. 25,000/- 5. Shri J.K. Jain - Rs. 25,000/- by impugned order dated 26-9-2003, which is assailed now in this appeal before us. 2. The facts involved in the appeal may be summed up as follows:- On the basis of intelligence received that tempo bearing registration No. GA-01-Z-3600 proceeding towards Mumbai was carrying smuggled goods of foreign origin, the Officers of Marine Preventive Wing of Belapur Circle intercepted the same near Phalaspe Panvel, on 19-1-2002. On enquiry, Shri Harish Shivram Wainga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration Numbers and the two hand written invoices bore the same number. The appellants failed to produce original documents regarding the transactions/purchase of goods, including payment particulars, namely, Bill of entry, Airways bill, Invoice and Dealer Invoice. 5.A Show Cause Notice dated 8-7-2002 was issued to the appellant's authorised signatory, Shri Shridar, Shri Deepak Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Trust Time Co., Vasai, Shri J.K. Jain, Director of M/s. Cenzer Industries Ltd., Goa and M/s. Cenzer Industries Ltd., owner of tempo, proposing confiscation of the goods seized and as the goods were not available for confiscation, why sufficient amount should not be appropriated after enforcing the Bank Guarantee, in lieu of confiscation. Secondly, why the customs duty amounting to Rs. 37,38,049/- should not be recovered under the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and lastly, why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.The appellant gave reply vide his letter dated 8-10-2002 denying all the allegations. It has submitted that M/s. Trust Time Co., Vasai, had imported one consignment containing watch movements and cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice No. 10, dated 30-4-2001 is also established to be genuine and the same is also supported and/or corroborated by the statutory record maintained by M/s. TTC, Vasai, namely RG 23-D register, the details of which are also endorsed on the said invoice. Therefore, the said goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the said Act. They relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in S.K. Chains v. Commissioner - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 415 (Tri.-Mum.) in support of their contention. 9.Further, other goods are covered by separate invoice No. 81, dated 17-1-2002 issued in the name of M/s. Cenzer Shop. Therefore, the question of using other goods to conceal watch movements did not arise. 10.Lastly, the appellants submitted that the sale of goods by them had been confirmed by its buyer i.e. M/s. Arihant Time Products vide statement of its proprietor, Shri Rajesh M. Bafra, and any discrepancy in the invoice Nos. 81 and 82 issued by them is purely a technical error, which is curable in nature and hence Show Cause Notice may be withdrawn and/or dropped and the Bond and the Bank Guarantee furnished for the provisional release of the said goods may be cancelled and return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Commissioner, Customs (Prev.), Mumbai, has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the seized goods are smuggled one and the appellant had failed to discharge the burden lie on him. The Commissioner, Customs (Prev.), appears to have inferred the guilt of the appellant on minor discrepancies in the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant. The case on hand essentially involves appreciation of evidence on record by applying the sound principles of law. Mere suspicion do not take shape of the legal proof. The findings are based on conjectures and surmises. No weight has been attached to the copies of documents produced by the appellant, which reflects on original import of goods under relevant Bill of Entry. It is an erroneous view of the Commissioner, Customs (Prev.) in insisting upon the original documents of import from the parties, who are not before him and whose attendance was not secured by the investigating agency. Prima facie, copies of documents produced by the appellant reflect upon the fact that the seized goods are licitly imported to India by M/s. Trust Time Co. They have been authenticated by procuring the Affidavit of Shri C. Deepak Jain, Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
