TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 11-4-2001, truck bearing No. HR-46-8137 belonging to Bombay Delhi Carrier (Regd.), Mumbai was intercepted by the officers of the customs preventive while parked in the parking area of Old Delhi Railway Station. On enquiry, the truck driver Manjeet Slingh disclosed that the goods loaded in the truck were ball bearings, toys, hardware items, deodorants, etc, but he could not produce any document regarding the legal acquisition of the same. On conducting search of the truck, 621 ball bearings pieces (No. 6307 K.G.) and 5 ball bearings (bearing No. 22340 CA Brand DYZV) belonging to the company M.P. International Pvt. Ltd. of which the present appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods had been wrongly ignored and mis-interpreted by the adjudicating authority. The seized goods are the same which were imported by the appellant s company from M/s. Auto Care (L.L.C.), Dubai and no enquiry had been made from that Company regarding non-purchase of the goods by the company M/s. M.P. International Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned SDR has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that scrutiny of the documents showed variation in the quantity of the goods imported by the company of the appellant when compared with the packing list and as such, the plea of the appellant regarding import of the seized goods, had been rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods had been imported from Dubai on purchase from M/s. Auto Care (L.L.C.), had been wrongly brushed aside by the adjudicating authority. The appellant produced two bills of entry dated 22-5-2000 and 2-1-2001 showing importation of the goods by his company M/s. M.P. International at Mumbai Port and Jawahar Lal Nehru Port, Nhava Sheva, respectively. But there is nothing on the record to suggest if any enquiry from these ports was conducted, for doubting the aforesaid plea of the appellant. The fact that there was variation in number of pieces of the ball bearings imported when compared with the packing list, was not enough to raise presumption that there was no import of the seized goods and the seized goods were smuggled goods. The descript ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
