TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same stating that the goods were loaded at Birganj Nepal for delivery at Baiswal, Nepal. If these factual details are seen together, it would clarify that the goods were of foreign origin only. When the seizure was effected, the Appellant was nowhere in the picture. He suddenly emerges as the owner of the goods after about five months - It is surprising that the Appellant did not follow up to locate his consignment worth more than Rs.1.65 Lakhs (as given in the Invoice No. 10 dated 10/04/2015). After more than five months, he has approached the Customs Officials on the ground that he is the owner of the goods. It is seen from the records that he has not sought copies of the Panchnama, Recorded Statement etc. from the Adjudicating Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng from Nepal to India near Indo-Nepal Border Pillar No.- 321. The Driver of the vehicle could not provide any proper document for the consignment 1500 Kgs of cut Betel Nut valued at Rs.3,00,000/- along with the vehicle bearing Nepal Registration No. Na-2-Cha/6141 valued at Rs.1,40,000/- were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statements were recorded from the detained person, Shri Chunda Mani Neopani and vehicle owner, Shri Rameshwar Raut Kurmi. As per their Recorded Statement on 15/04/2014, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, they stated that the goods were booked from Birganj, Nepal to Bailwas, Nepal. However, due to failing of vision in the night, they reached in the Indo Nepal Border. After about five m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Indian origin only. Hence, she prays that the impugned OIA may be set aside and the Appeal may be allowed. 3. The Learned AR submits that it is an admitted fact that vehicle involved is bearing the Nepal Registration number. When it was intercepted at the Indo Nepal Border, the driver has stated that the goods were to be transported within Nepal only from Birganj to Bailwas. This Statement was also corroborated by the vehicle owner. Both these statements were recorded in April 2015. The Appellant though claiming to have dispatched the consignment on 10/04/2015 did not appear in picture till 03/09/2015. After five months, he came into picture and claimed that these goods were initially purchased by him and was being sold by him to Navin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he removed the goods within India in the vehicle but he does not remember the vehicle number and details of the driver. He states that this vehicle had broken down and he went with another vehicle to get the goods shifted from the earlier vehicle. After reaching there, he did not find the vehicle which had broken down and hence could not carry out transfer of the goods with new vehicle. While all these happened on 11/04/2015, the Appellant was not in a position to state as to what action he has taken to follow up with the purported buyer of the goods Navin Kumar. In the normal course, the buyer would have informed that the good have not reached him. It is surprising that the Appellant did not follow up to locate his consignment worth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
