9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original for the adjudicating authority who confiscated the seized goods and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant. 2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the goods being not restricted goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, no presumption about the smuggled character of the same could be drawn and that the valid import of the goods un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , are of foreign origin. The goods being not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act is not much important as the appellant has claimed the goods, being purchaser of the same from the importer and for valid import of these goods, the appellant has relied upon the three baggage receipt Nos. i.e. B-154575, dated 27-6-1998, B-166314, dated 15-1-1999 and B-175907, dated 6-10-1999 under which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods to that person or to the agent, at the time of alleged purchase of the goods, had been also not disclosed by him. 5. The relied upon baggage receipts by the appellant detailed above even do not advance his plea. From the Order-in-original, it is quite evident that the seized goods carried the name of country Malaysia and year of manufacture Feb., 2000, whereas, the baggage receipts are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not come to a admit the sale of foreign origin goods in question to the appellant. Therefore, the lawful possession of the foreign origin goods by the appellant, does not stand proved. That being so the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty on the appellant, is legally justifiable. 6. The ratio of law laid down in above-referred cases relied upon by the Counsel, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
