TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .D. Nankani, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. The following points have been raised which according to the applicant Commissioner are points of law arising out of the Tribunals order :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Tribunal has erred in holding that the Customs authorities have no power to confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not discharged the obligation cast on them to show that the goods in question are properly imported and cleared from the Customs. It may be noted that the goods in question were in substantial quantity of 1243 pieces weighing 10,000 kg. valued at Rs. 35.00 lacs. When the purported supplier of the goods denied the supply as happened in this case, it is for the Respondents to have indicated the cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. Therefore it is clearly asking for a appreciation again of the evidence by the Tribunal. Further, there is a fresh reference to the offence attracting provisions of Foreign Trade and Development (Regulation) Act, 1992 in the reference application, which has not been taken in Show Cause Notice. This is also not permissible. The ld. Counsel further pointed out that the reference application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illicit nature of the import and the reasoning further go to show Tribunal s conclusion that Respondents case gets further strength by the fact that the goods in questions were permissible to be imported under OGL and to that extent the obligation caused on Department is even more. It is in this context that the observation relating to OGL import and confiscation appearing in the order has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
