9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : V. Padmanabhan, Member (T)]. - The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14-1-2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi. The appellant's are traders having their address in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Customs Officers investigated an intelligence against the firm named M/s. QNT operated by Mr. Mi Li Gang alias Steven, who is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, inasmuch as the appellant could not provide proof of legal possession of seized goods. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri V.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellant. He submitted that Revenue is required to establish that the seized goods were smuggled. Since Revenue has failed to do this, the impugned order should be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossession are not smuggled goods. Therefore, the burden of proving that the seized goods are smuggled goods would lie upon the Customs authorities. No such evidence has been brought on records by Customs authorities to substantiate that the goods seized from the appellant are smuggled goods. Consequently, there is no justification for confiscation of such goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
