TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Costa Rica origin and recorded the statement of the appellant. The said goods were seized and a show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the goods alleging that the appellant was not able to produce documents for the legal possession of the goods. Adjudicating authority in his order-in-original confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 70,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and confirmed the demand of Rs. 8,135/- as duty, on the goods sold by the appellants earlier. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order-in-original and the appellate authority did not accept the contention of the appellant and dismissed the appeal, Hence the appellant is before me. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that the appellant has himself admitted in his statement that he is aware that possession of this kind of goods amounts to smuggling. She relies upon the following case laws: - (1) Beer Auto Store v. C.C., New Delhi - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.-Mum.); (2) Rajendra Jagannath Parekh v. C.C., Ahmedabad - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 238 (Tri. -Mumbai); (3) Nazir-ur-Rehman v. C.C., Mumbai - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 493 (Tri.-Mum.) for the proposition that once the foreign origin of the goods are admitted and goods are recovered from appellant, the department has discharged the burden and it was for the appellant to prove the legal possession of the goods. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. The bare perusal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e non-notified goods and were seized from New Delhi. The said goods were freely importable and were available across the shelf in any shop which deals in computer hardware. The Tribunal in the case of Naveed Ahmed Khan (supra) has held that: - Smuggling - Burden of proof - Goods initially seized by police and handed over to Customs authorities - Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 not applicable - Burden of proving the smuggled nature of goods on Revenue - Appellant s statement that they purchased the goods from the shops located opposite to Customs office not contradicted by Revenue - No finding that goods smuggled directly by appellants. Fact of not carrying licit documents not a ground for holding the goods as smuggled one. Confiscatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
