TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spring, seized from his residential premises and his business premises on 9-8-1997 as he had failed to produce any records or documents regarding import of these goods at the time of seizure. 2. Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate, submitted that as the impugned goods were not seized under the reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods, the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act are not attracted; that in his statements recorded before the seizure of the goods, the Appellant has deposed that he had purchased LCD Modules and Calculators from M/s. Mahalaxmi International, 22 Godam, Jaipur and Sardar Manohar Singh r/o Patel Nagar, Delhi; that the bills/voucher were with the accountant, Shri Bilal and he would produce them on 11-8-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he officers had the reasonable belief before effecting seizure; that it was held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shanti Lal Mehta v. U.O.I. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1715 (Del.) that the preliminary requirements of Section 110 of the Customs Act is that the Officer seizing the goods should have reasonable belief that the goods seized were smuggled goods; the reasonable belief refers to the point of time when the goods in question are seized and not to the stage subsequent to the act of seizure; that if the goods were not seized under reasonable belief, Section 123 cannot be invoked and if the section is wrongly applied the entire enquiry and the order passed would be vitiated. The ld. Advocate also referred to the observation of the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the travel agency at Delhi in his statement dated 12-8-1997 gave details of 14 consignments which were sent from Jaipur Office and out of which 13 consignments were delivered to the Appellants; that Shri Manohar Singh had also, in his statement dated 12-8-1997 mentioned about import of a consignment of modules and calculators in CKD condition in February 1997 and sale of the goods to the Appellant; that Manohar Singh had also confirmed that the Electronic Calculators seized on 9-8-1997 were sold by him under Bill No. 131, dated 9-8-1997; that the letter to that effect was sent by Manohar Singh on 12-8-1997 stating that the Electronic Calculators were imported by his firm and were cleared from the Customs by paying the Customs duty; th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that day; that further, it is evident from panchnama dated 9-8-1997 recorded at the residence of Appellant that what was seized was watch movements and not the complete goods; that the Appellant never produced the books of accounts; that from the fact on one package/box containing 5,000 pieces of modules it was written From Mahalaxmi International Jaipur to Mohan Lal Gupta and on remaining packages no such marking was found, it is established that 1,09,250 pieces had not been procured through any legal channel and these were of foreign origin. The ld. SDR, further, submitted, that only in 9 cases bills were given on 11-8-1997 and the remaining bills were produced by Appellant in October 1997 only i.e. much after the seizure of the goods; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rajani at Jaipur that he had sold his manufactured goods to the Appellant. On the question of reasonable belief, the Supreme Court observed in the case of M.G. Abrol v. Amichand, AIR 1961 Bom. 227 while interpreting Section 178A of the Customs Act that There is one and only one construction possible of this section; so far as the point of time at which the reasonable belief should exist in regard to the seizure of any smuggled goods is concerned and the construction is that wherever the goods are seized, the officer seizing the goods must at the time of seizure have a reasonable belief in his mind that the goods that he was seizing were smuggled goods . The Supreme Court in the case of Pukhraj v. D.R. Kohli - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1360 (S.C.) = ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initial statement he did say that he had purchased the goods from said Razani but he could not produce any bill or Central Excise document under which the goods were cleared by said Razani. The ld. SDR has also submitted that he produced only 9 bills after 2 days of the search and remaining bills were produced in October, that is much after the seizure of goods. If the impugned goods were purchased from Delhi and Jaipur, the bills should have been available with the Appellant which should have been produced by him on the day of search and seizure itself, failing which by next day. Further no books of accounts were produced by him to show the transaction in these goods with the so-called suppliers in India. Further Mukesh Moolrazani has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
