TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t controverted the said purchases made by the appellant from the local dealers, we find the burden of proof has not been discharged by the departmental authorities that the goods were of smuggled nature and that they had been illicitly imported without payment of duty. As regards the claim of the lower authorities that the goods were of imported nature, we find that except for one coil, no markings were found on any of the coils, hence whether the seized goods were imported or otherwise is itself in doubt. In such a factual matrix, we find that the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Aakash Enterprises [2006 (3) TMI 174 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] squarely covers the issue in favor of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellers and hence they are not the importer. Both the lower authorities did not agree with the contentions raised and confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalties. 3. Learned counsel, at the outset, would submit that the impugned order of the first appellate authority is totally incorrect as the burden of proof that the imported goods are smuggled is on the Customs authorities, which has not been discharged, as when the investigation started, appellant had produced documents to show that the goods were purchased by them locally. It is also his submission that the department could not establish during the investigation or by orders that the goods purchased by them are thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods which are seized, i.e. SS coils, are freely importable under Exim Policy and both the lower authorities have confiscated them under Section 111(d) on the presumptive ground that the person who imported such goods ought to have IEC code, which is totally presumptive in nature. It is his submission that in view of the above, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned departmental representative, on the other hand, would reiterate the findings of the lower authorities and submits that the burden of the seized goods was on the appellant and they have not discharged the same. 5. On perusal of the records and consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that both the lower authorities have not controverted the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
