9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esel engines and seized 54 diesel engines. Show cause notice was issued subsequently alleging that these goods were liable to confiscation under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and that penalties under Sec.112 was imposable on the firm M/s. Parda Motors as well as two partners thereof viz. Kayamali M. Pardawala and Asgarali M. Pardawala. The Commissioner confiscated the engines but permitted their redemption on payment of fine and imposed penalties on the two partners. 3. We have heard Shri D.H. Shah, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the revenue. 4. Before the Commissioner the claim of the appellant was that used diesel engines were not notified under Sec.123 of the Act nor were they notified in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 of the West Regional Bench, Mumbai. Shri Deepak Kumar referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodar Das Soni reported in 1983 (113) E.L.T. 1620 which was cited in the last named judgment and submits that in this case the department had discharged the burden by establishing the circumstances from which a prudent man acting prudently might infer that in all probability the goods in question were smuggled goods and that the accused had the guilty knowledge thereof. He refers to the indepth investigation extracted in the body of the show cause notice. 7. Shri Shah submits that in all cases at all times, the appellants had claimed that sellers had been paid by cross cheques and that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the various provisions under Sec. 111 of the Act. Thus, the goods lawfully imported but unloaded at a wrong place would also become smuggled goods. But in the ordinary parlance, smuggled goods means those which crossed the Customs border without the knowledge of the Customs authorities. This would include undeclared goods. A person liable to himself to risks in case of detection, the goods sought to be smuggled would be high valued goods. We cannot perceive of IC engines as a popular item of smuggling in the popular sense i.e. without knowledge of Customs. 11. The engines are 'smuggled' by the thousands in their legal sense i.e. they are imported without cover of a licence. Such goods are adjudicated upon and confiscated. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the firms was not in existence. In that case, we had observed that the number of engines purchased from that firm was small. In this case, we find that about 55% of the engines were brought from the companies which were shown to be non existent by the Customs. The appellants state that they exist and were paid by cheque and also that the Customs lacked motivation in locating them. But as we have observed earlier even in such a situation, the burden of proof does not shift to on the appellant. 14. Thus on the examination of the evidence and the arguments, we hold that the department has failed to establish prima facie case of illegal importation. The order of confiscation, therefore, does not survive. Consequently, the orders of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
