TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of viscose knitted fabrics no other evidence has been produced to rebut the presumption under section 123. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.CA/207/11 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2012 - DR. D.M.MISRA, J. SHRI S.CHAKRABORTY, AR (ASSTT. COMMR.) FOR THE REVENUE. This is an Appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. Prev/Cus/02/2011 dated 25.03.2011. 2. None present for the Appellant in spite of notice, nor there is any request for adjournment. The matter was called out earlier on 13.03.12, 27.04.12, but none appeared for the Appellant. Heard the learned AR for the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of information dated 22.07.2009, the Revenue Officers visited godown of M/s. Shreeji Road Lin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (East), Mumbai-72. Accordingly, two summons were issued to the new address of the Appellant, but they did not turn up claiming the goods in question. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the said goods under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with a proposal for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the said Act. On adjudication, the learned Assistant Commissioner found that the fabrics were not alleged to be made of wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn, whereas the claimant had furnished the related Bills of Entry indicating knitted fabrics. Further, observing that the said goods being knitted fabrics were not notified and the Investigating Authority failed to prove that the goods in question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear finding that the description given in the Bills of Entry does not tally with the description of the seized goods and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that when the goods were of synthetic fabrics, then the same must be made wholly or mainly of synthetic yarns, is incorrect. Further, he has submitted that since the goods are notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden lies on the Appellant to prove that the goods are not smuggled and were licitly imported into India. 7. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding relating to the seized goods and observed that the same is notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. At paras 5 and 6 of the Order-in-Appeal, he has obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
