TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Account. It is also an admitted fact that there was wide discrepancy in the Inventory List prepared by the Customs officers and findings of Joint Inspection where the Appellant also participated. There is force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that if Revenue had doubt about these goods being smuggled, they should have taken some action against the supplier but no such action was taken - also there is force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that these goods are not notified and do not fall under the ambit of Section 123, but even then the Department has sought to shift the onus on the Appellant to prove that the goods are legally imported by not taking any action against the supplier. The con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) by Order No FO/75129/2018 dated 29.01.2018. By the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the Penalty imposed upon the Appellant but maintaining confiscation of goods and Redemption Fine plus appropriate customs duty initially imposed by Adjudication Authority. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant states that the subject goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act as there is no proof to show that these goods are illegally imported as these are domestic g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption and assumption. He also states that if the goods were actually smuggled, Department would have taken action against the supplier/importer/IEC holder but no such thing was done. This shows that the Department has taken two stands from the beginning and unnecessarily initiated proceedings against the Appellant despite it being unequivocally visible that Department has no proof that these are smuggled goods. He states that the goods are not notified under Section 123 of Customs Act and therefore onus to show that these are illegally imported, lies on the Department and by not taking any action against the importer, Department is trying to shift the burden of proof on the Appellant. 4. The Ld. Counsel vehe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 20,40,000/- by two Cheques from his Bank Account. It is also an admitted fact that there was wide discrepancy in the Inventory List prepared by the Customs officers and findings of Joint Inspection where the Appellant also participated. I find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that if Revenue had doubt about these goods being smuggled, they should have taken some action against the supplier but no such action was taken. I also find force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that these goods are not notified and do not fall under the ambit of Section 123, but even then the Department has sought to shift the onus on the Appellant to prove that the goods are legally imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
