9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that certain quantity of cut betel nuts seized by the Revenue were alleged to be smuggled from Nepal. The issue involved is whether the said goods are liable to confiscation and whether the respondents are liable to penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, possessed and dealt with the goods which contravenes Section 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, Notification No.09-Cus/96 dated 22.01.1996 issued under Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 which renders the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 (b) & (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and both the appellants are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ownership. Subsequently enquiry continued and no statement could be recorded as notice No.1 & 2 to the show cause notice never appeared for recording statement. At adjudication stage for the first time the notice No.1 & 2 presented their case in the form of defence reply to the show cause noitice. But I do not find any evidence or circumstantial evidence strong enough to prove that the said goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce that the impugned goods are of smuggled nature. There is no dispute that the goods in question are non-notified items. It is well settled that the non-notified goods cannot be seized merely on assumption or presumption. Therefore, I agree with the finding of the Commissioner(Appeals). 6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
