TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was initially seized by the Special Staff of DCP, West Zone, Delhi Police, and later on obtained by the DRI, Nepal Division, by the orders of the Court, but failed to produce any document regarding the legal importation of those ball bearings which were of foreign origin. The seizure of the ball bearings was made by the Police on 26-9-2000 from House No. RZ-27, Sayed Gaon, Delhi, which belonged to appellant No. 2 as he had taken the same on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- from Shri Om Prakash Yadav, the owner of the property. On completion of investigation and after recording statements of both the appellants as well as of Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta and of other concerned persons, the show cause notice was served on both the appellants for the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same, and not for the Revenue that the goods were smuggled. Having failed to prove so, an inference that the goods were smuggled by him into India, had been rightly drawn by the adjudicating authority especially when he had even not produced any document to prove the purchase of these goods from the local market from any dealer. 5. The argument of the learned Counsel that initial burden was on the Department to prove that the goods were of smuggled nature, cannot be accepted. No doubt, the initial burden in a case of seizure of foreign origin of the goods remains on the Department to prove the smuggled character of the goods, but it is not always essential for the Department to discharge this burden only by adducing direct evidence. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re smuggled goods. 6. Similarly, Section 114 of the Evidence Act lays down that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common cause of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The Apex Court in the case of Shah Guman Mal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1631 (S.C.) = 1980 AIR SC 793, while dealing with the question of burden of proof in a case of seizure of gold biscuits not in accordance with the Act and where presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act was not available to the prosecution, was pleaded to observe that presumption under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
