Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (5) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n Kanhaya Nagar (Tri Nagar Delhi) on the same day search of the godown, in presence of the two panchas resulted in recovery of 9,029 pieces of ball bearings of Polish origin totally valued at Rs. 9,02,900. Ball bearings were packed in 43 gunny bundles. Since the appellant could not produce any document for legal import/possession of those ball bearings, the same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on reasonable belief that the same have been smuggled into India. The appellant was identified by the landlord of the house as the person to whom the premises, from where the aforesaid ball bearings were recovered, had been let out. 2. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 108 ibid on 25/26-4-1999. He inter ali .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emember the date of delivery; that all these ball bearings were FLT 30305 made in Poland and he kept them in his godown at 3914/17, Kanhaya Nagar, Delhi, Shri Kulbhushan Jain stated that Banwari had told him that these ball bearings after being smuggled from Nepal were first sent to Ludhiana by truck so that by taking this route no body will suspect regarding smuggled goods coming to Delhi; that out of 46 packets received by him he had sold 3 packets i.e. 630 pieces of FLT 30305 ball bearings in the retail market; that balance 43 packets have been seized by DRI Officers on 25-4-1997 valued at Rs. 9,02,900; that these ball bearings which were seized from him did not have any valid bills/vouchers for valid imports." 4. Statement of Dharmvee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uggled ball bearings with full knowledge that the said ball bearings were smuggled and that it was illegal to deal with such illegally imported goods. 9. Notice was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why the ball bearings be not confiscated under Section 111(d) ibid, penalty be not imposed under Section 112(b) ibid. 10. In reply, the appellant stated that he purchased ball bearings from a dalal (brocker). Copy of an affidavit dated 27-8-1997 from one Shri Raj Kumar in this regard was submitted. He also submitted that Section 123 ibid is not attracted to ball bearings. It is, therefore, the burden of the Revenue to prove the smuggled character of the goods which has not been discharged by Revenue. Statements dated 25-4-1997 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in judicial custody. The authority below has, therefore, treated the statement dated 25/26-4-1997 as voluntary. 12.1 Hence this appeal before us. 13. Learned Advocate Shri Vivek Sood submits that merely because the goods are of foreign origin, it does not mean that the goods are smuggled because the goods are freely importable by actual users and their entry into market is not illegal. Being freely available, their sale and purchase without any accounts does not attract the provisions of the Customs Act. 14. As regards reliance on the statement of the appellant, learned Advocate submits that it was taken under threat and coercion. It is apparent from the fact that the appellant brought this fact to the notice of the Commissioner of Cu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orities as already set out. 18. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We find substantial force in the pleas of the learned Advocate that the goods being merely of foreign origin could not be considered to be smuggled goods when the goods are freely importable by Actual users. There is no restriction on purchase and sale of the goods under the Customs Act. It was not, therefore, necessary that the appellant should have kept the accounts of purchase and sale. Absence of these accounts is no doubt a circumstance against the appellant, but the inference of smuggled character of the goods on that circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold that the goods are smuggled. We also observe that the appellant produced an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates