9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... origin and imposed penalties amongst others on the appellant of Rs. 10,00,000/- only. 2. Acting on a specific information, the officers of the Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate intercepted two trucks loaded with black pepper of foreign origin contained in 212 and 144 HDPE bags/Jute bags marked with "Produce of Vietnam". The said goods were therefore seized for lack of evidence of licit import of the goods, being smuggled in nature. It is therefore, the contention of the Department that the smuggled black pepper, was brought into India in violation of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 through routes that were not notified under Section 7(c) of the Customs Act and therefore, liable for confiscation under Section 111 (b) & (d) of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds in Delhi. 4. The appellant submits that he was not aware of any contact details of said Ashish and that he had not made any payment for the seized goods to the said broker Ashish. The department in its investigations could not lay hand upon the said Ashish. It is a fact on record that the bags of black pepper were found concealed under flattened paper cartons and no document in support of legitimate import could be produced either at the time of seizure on the spot or subsequently by any of the persons including Sri Praveen Kasera. 5. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the entire case of the Revenue is built upon conjectures and surmises and there was no mens rea on part of the appellant. Therefore, he f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not convinced with the version of the appellant as nothing thereto is corroborated from the records of the case. The fact of having placed order for procurement of 20-22 tons by a "fictitious" person is clever ploy by the appellant to extricate himself of consequential liabilities. The appellant could not produce even a single piece of evidence to support his contention that they had placed order on the said person named Ashish, who in turn had allegedly informed the appellant, about the seizure. With no formal orders or no payments having been made and with no details about Ashish, the version of the appellant is difficult to be believed. That being so, if Ashish was a real person upon whom the appellant had placed order for supply of said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... worth crores of rupees would be made by an unknown seller without receiving any payment from the purchaser. No prudent businessmen would deal and carry out such activities to/from unknown buyers and risk huge quantity of goods. 12. We do not therefore find any reason justifying non-imposition of penalty on the appellant. Mens rea on part of the appellant and his intent for smuggling of large quantities of black pepper evading duty payment is established. The onus to support his version about Ashish by furnishing his details was on the appellant, which has not been discharged. There is no payment proof of licit acquisition of the said goods. The confiscation of goods calls for no interference. There being no real owner/claimant of seized g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
