TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e categories of goods appearing in Section 123 or which are notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden is on the department to lead evidence that goods of foreign origin are in fact smuggled. Simply, bearing some foreign marks does not mean that goods are smuggled ones. There is even no evidence on record that appellant was aware of the foreign origin of goods, much less knowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uwahati as First Appellate Authority. Under this OIA dt.04.10.2013 First Appellate Authority has upheld the OIO dated 28.06.2011 of the Adjudicating Authority imposing a penalty of ₹ 2.00 lakh upon the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Sk. Md. Jamil, Authorised Representative of the appellant argued that the appellant is not the owner of the goods seized on 03.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned AR also made the bench go through paragraphs-1.11, 2.1(ii), (v), (vi) and 4.4. of the OIO dt. 28.06.2011 to argue that appellant was evasive during investigation and address of shippers and consignees were concealed by the appellant. That conduct of the appellant makes him an abettor and penalty has been correctly imposed by Adjudicating Authority and appropriately upheld by the First Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per (i) to (v) of the Section. 4.1. It is observed from the case records that there is no evidence on record as to how the seized goods are smuggled, by whom, and from which route these goods were brought into India. Seized goods are not one of the categories of goods appearing in Section 123 or which are notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden is on the department to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
