Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the confiscation of the mobile phones and the penalty imposed on the purchasers could be sustained in the absence of evidence that they were smuggled goods and in the presence of sale documents and dealer confirmation.
Analysis: The purchasers produced sale documents showing acquisition from a dealer, and the dealer confirmed the sale while producing supporting records such as bill of entry, invoice and packing list. The absence of the M.E.I. number in the import documents could not, by itself, fasten responsibility on the subsequent buyers when there was no insistence by the Customs authorities on recording such numbers on the import documents. In these circumstances, and in the absence of other evidence of smuggling, the benefit of doubt was required to be given to the appellants.
Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were set aside insofar as they related to the appellants, and refund of sale proceeds was directed if the goods had already been sold by Customs.