TMI Blog1958 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed the shop as well as the house occupied by Cassim, one of the partners, and seized a number of articles on suspicion, that these goods had been smuggled into the country contrary to the regulations in force. After an investigation, notice was served on the petitioner to show cause why the goods listed in that notice should not be confiscated as smuggled goods. After an enquiry the Assistant Collector recorded :- "In reply to the show cause memo issued to him Mr. Cassim stated that the goods in his possession which were normally available through trade channels should be presumed to be legally acquired by him. The explanation of Mr. Cassim is not satisfactory and therefore cannot be accepted". The Assistant Collector ordered :— "I c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Fuji silk with stains 6 yards 10. Cushion covers (velvet) 3. It should be noted that nine items of the articles seized on 23-10-1956 were ordered to be returned. The order of the Assistant Collector embodied a tabular statement of all the goods seized and the last column showed the result of the enquiries with reference to each of the items, which apparently furnished the basis for the release of some of the articles seized and for the confiscation of the others. 4. It was to these factors that the Collector referred in his appellate order. The Collector stated : "As regards the articles confiscated by the Assistant Collector of Customs the department has established that the covering docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods enumerated in the list recorded above came within the scope of Rule 3 of the Imports Control Order, 1955 which ran : "Save as otherwise provided in this Order, no person shall import any goods of the description specified in Schedule I except under and in accordance with a licence or Customs clearance permit granted by the Central Government or by any officer specified in Schedule II". It should also be remembered that it was never the case of the Department that the petitioner himself had imported any of the goods in question. 7. Certainly the authorities were entitled to reject as unproved the plea of the petitioner that these goods had been acquired by the petitioner through the normal trade channels in the open market. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable stock, considering the normal turnover in the shop of the petitioner. We have referred to these features only to emphasise that neither the description of the goods nor the quantity of these goods was sufficient to indicate that these goods could not have been acquired by a trader in the position of the petitioner in the open market in India. To take again another example, the position might have been different if, instead of being asked to account for the purchase of nine nylon shirts, the petitioners had had to account for the acquisition of stock of nine thousand shirts, of which nine remained unsold at the time of the seizure. What really happened was that every article, irrespective of the quantity, the purchase of which the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese goods it knew or had reason to be lieve that these were smuggled goods. 9. The Collector, it should be remembered, recorded "............if from the surrounding circumstances there is sufficient ground for presuming that the goods have been illegally imported, it is not necessary for the Customs House to positively establish that the goods are smuggled, and the onus of proof shifts to the other side". We are not commenting on the soundness or otherwise of this proposition of law. What the "surrounding circumstances" the Collector had in view were was not clear either from the order or from the counter-affidavit. 10. As we are of opinion that there was no material on which could be rested a finding, that the possession of the goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
