9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that on information, the Customs Preventive Officers searched office-cum-godown of the appellants at Kashmere Gate, Delhi on 13-11-1999. On search, they found 58256 pcs. of bearings of foreign origin collectively valued at Rs. 1,50,11,900/- contained in 82 packages. These packages were booked in the name of eight consignors and consigned to different persons with incomplete addresses. All the packages were therefore seized. Shri Darshan Lal, Loading Assistant of the appellant transporters, in his statement dt. 13-11-1999 admitted the recovery of the bearings of foreign origin from the godown and stated that the consignments were booked on 'To pay' basis; that the consignments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants - M/s. A.B.C. Roadways under Section 112(b) of the Act. 2. The present appeal and the stay petitions are against the above order of the Commissioner. We have heard S/Shri K. Kumar & H.L. Mehra, Advocates and Shri M.S. Gupta, Consultant for the appellants and Shri C.L. Mehar, SDR for the respondents. The ld. Counsels for the appellants have not disputed the contraband nature of the goods, nor have they questioned their absolute confiscation. It is however, contended that the goods were booked on 'To pay' basis in which the charges are collected at the point of delivery. It is stated that the work of transport line is a very competitive one and the verification of ownership of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that no penalty is liable to be imposed on the appellants. The ld. SDR for the revenue on the contrary reiterates the findings arrived at in the order of the Commissioner. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. As already stated above, the contraband nature of the goods seized from the premises of the appellants and their absolute confiscation is not in challenge before us. The fact that these goods were seized from the possession of the appellants who received these goods for transportation from Delhi to Mumbai, is also not in dispute. The fact that all the GR's bore fictitious and non-existent addresses of the consignors and also practically no addresses of the consignees is also not contested. These facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of Section 114 of the The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with the Illustration (a), as follows : "114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. - The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case". Illustrations : The Court may presume - "(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession." 4. In view of the facts and the law as discussed above, since the contraband goods are recovered from the posses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
