TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd RPF officials, the said bundles were opened and were found to contain silk yarn along with labels marked as 'Blossoms'. In one of the bags. Some cards inspected by 'Sichvan Import Export Commodity Inspection Bureau of Peoples of Republic of China' were also found. On a reasonable belief that the said goods of foreign origin were smuggled, the same was seized by the officers. 3. Subsequently, Shri Motiur Rahman of Malda filed a petition along with photocopy of purchase receipt and other documents of white silk yarn and made a request for release of the goods. The seized silk yarn was also tested from the Central Silk Technological Research Institute, Madiavala, Bangalore which revealed that the silk in question was not of Indian origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... item under provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the onus to show that the same is smuggled lies heavily upon the Revenue. The authorities below have held the silk yarn liable to confiscation by observing that the appellants have failed to produce any documentary evidence to show the legal acquisition of the yarn. He submits that mere non-failure of the appellants to produce documents cannot be held against them inasmuch as if the appellants are required to produce documentary evidence, the entire purpose of not notified goods under Section 123 is defeated. Drawing my attention to the various decisions of the Tribunal he submits that it is well settled law that in case of non-notified item, the burden to prove the smuggled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 22/20 denier and the test report does not indicate that the seized yarn is not of that quality. In any case I find that even if taking the test report as correct, the same is to the effect that the yarn in question is of foreign origin. The goods are admittedly non-notified items under the provisions of Section 123. As such, as rightly argued by the learned Consultant by referring to the various decisions of the Tribunal that the burden to prove the smuggle character of the goods is on the Revenue. From the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner I find that he has held the goods liable to confiscation on the ground that the parties failed to produce of evidence in respect of the licit importation of the same. 7. I find that the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
