TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act, 1962. Merely alleging that the goods in question are smuggled one on reasonable belief is not sufficient. As the Revenue has failed to prove with cogent evidence that the goods in question are smuggled one, in that circumstances, it is held that the goods are not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the Appellant. Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 76200 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75756/2023 - Dated:- 15-6-2023 - HON BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) NONE for the Appellant (s) Shri S.Chakraborty, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER Per : ASHOK JINDAL : This Appeal has been filed by the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- @ Rs.100/- per kg. The value of the vehicle was ascertained to be Rs.18,51,930/- as per the details of insurance policy certificate. 3. Accordingly, a seizure case was booked vide seizure case number 02/lmp/Un/Cus/PPU/12-13 dated 07.10.2012 in presence of two independent witnesses under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 on reasonable belief that the betel nuts were smuggled into India from Bangladesh through unauthorized route in violation of section 7(1)(c) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(1) of Import/Export (Control) Act, 1947 as amended and Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962 and therefore liable for confiscation under the provisions of section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the carrier vehicle used to carry suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se there was a reasonable belief that the betel nuts in question is smuggled one, but no evidence has been brought by the Revenue to support the said allegation as onus to prove the goods in question are smuggled one lies on the Revenue as the goods in question are not notified goods in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Merely alleging that the goods in question are smuggled one on reasonable belief is not sufficient. 9. As the Revenue has failed to prove with cogent evidence that the goods in question are smuggled one, in that circumstances, we hold that the goods are not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the Appellant. In these terms the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
