Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 279 - HC - CustomsConfiscation of goods - Attempt to smuggle gold - Discharge of burden of proof - Held that:- there is a seizure specifically effected under the said Act of 1962. Hence, special rule of evidence under Section 123 of the said Act of 1962 will certainly apply and the burden will be on the appellant to prove that the said articles are not smuggled goods. As far as discharge of burden of proof is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that one Shri Kolekar had handed over old ornaments weighing 148.00 grams to the petitioner for making of new ornaments and that the said gold along with the gold of 52.00 grams available with the petitioner was used for making the said articles. The authorities below have noted that the statement of the said Shri Kolekar was recorded who denied to have given any such ornaments. Before the Collector, the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that the said articles were made up from the gold ornaments weighing 148.00 grams supplied by Shri Kolekar. Therefore, the concurrent finding is that the petitioner could not explain as to how he came into custody of the said articles - Decided against assessee.
|