TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable belief, the cotton printed sarees were attempted for illegal exportation to Bangladesh in violation of Section 3(1) 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 which rendered the same liable to confiscation under Section 113(b) and 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Officials of Lalgola on receipt of such goods from the BSF personnel, seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. On 4-12-2002, Md. Ataur Rahman of Lalgola Market submitted a petition claiming ownership of 1200 pcs of cotton printed sarees. In support of his claim, Md. Ataur Rahman submitted a photocopy of a Licence issued in his favour by the Directorate of Textile/Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He submits that he has produced the evidences in support of his claim which has not been rebutted by the respondents. He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed. 4. Shri Mishra submits that the goods were lying near the Border area and it was the duty of the appellants to prove that the goods were not meant for export. He submits that no procedural illegality will render the seizure invalid. He, further submits that the appellants could not able to prove that the goods were in their possession. He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be rejected. 5. In the present case, the Customs authorities have not recorded the statement of the BSF Personnel who seized the goods and prepared the seizure memo. Even the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondents that the goods were seized in abandoned condition, then the question of attempt to export does not arise. The appellants have also submitted a Bill from Guru Stores, Kolkata for purchase of sarees on 7-11-2002. The Customs authorities could not able to rebut the evidences produced by the appellants or could not able to file any documents in rebuttal. From their show-cause notice, it is clear that the Customs officers themselves have admitted the possession of the goods of the appellants. 7. The appellants had placed on record the Bills and invoices showing purchase of goods. No enquiry was conducted by the investigating officer from the person/shop owner who had sold the goods to the appellants under Bills and Invoices. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
