9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ications are filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner set aside five orders of the lower authority. The lower authority confiscated imported goods found in the possession of five passengers who arrived from Chennai to Mumbai under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not tally. The original authority therefore held that the initial burden thrown on the persons from whose possession the goods were seized had not been discharged. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Bhoormul's case wherein the Supreme Court held that a Customs Officer is entitled to ask the person from whose possession goods of foreign origin is seized on a reasonable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. In the present case the story that the goods were duty paid under a particular baggage receipt was proved to be false. It is pleaded that the persons from whose possession the goods are seized have no fixed address and if the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not stayed the goods will have to be released to the persons, in which case there is a danger that the Department will not be able ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.)]. At this prima facie stage, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion that the baggage receipts produced by the respondents covered the impugned goods. In view of the fact that the Respondents have no fixed addresses, balance of convenience lies in staying the operation of the Commissioner's order. 7. We accordingly stay the operation of the order of the Commissioner during the pende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
