TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he had purchased some old ornaments from Nepali citizens unaware of their citizenship then it could be only due to unawareness and only a meagre portion of the seized lot could be so, because in majority of the cases the customers are the local ladies of Jogbani. The confiscation of entire lot and imposition of [redemption fine of] ₹ 1,90,000/- with penalty of ₹ 30,000/- is not justified. There was no material to hold that the seized silver jewellary and ornaments were of foreign origin and there is nothing to show that they are smuggled into India - Onus is on the Department to prove illegal import. Mentioning the amount in a particular currency is not sufficient to establish illegal import from that country. The redempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 30,000/- under Section 112(a)/112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed before him. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant reiterates the grounds of appeals and submits that the appellant is running a jewellery shop and sells and purchases silver jewellary to any customer who comes to his shop without verifying his citizenship (India or Nepal) as there is no restrictions on movement from either side. The Learned Advocate vehemently argued that if the goods are notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, then it was an obligation on the Department to prove beyond doubt tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 3(2) of the FT(DR) Act, 1992 and notifications issued u/s 11 of the Customs Act. However, the adjudicating authority has failed to justify the allegation as to how a person alleged to have purchased silver jewellery in his shop/house located in India from Nepali citizens could have contravened the provisions of Section 7 which envisages that the goods, in course of import or export, as the case may be, should transit through notified routes, Section 46 which enjoins that a Bill of Entry should be mandatorily submitted to the port, Section 47 which envisages that such goods should not be cleared unless permitted by proper officer of Customs and over and above, Section 11 which empowers the Central Government to notify the goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire lot and imposition of [redemption fine of] ₹ 1,90,000/- with penalty of ₹ 30,000/- is not justified. In view of the above discussions, it is my considered view that there was no material to hold that the seized silver jewellary and ornaments were of foreign origin and there is nothing to show that they are smuggled into India. On all these grounds the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Onus is on the Department to prove illegal import. Mentioning the amount in a particular currency is not sufficient to establish illegal import from that country. The redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 112(a)/112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
