Ownership of seized processed fabrics must be proved with reliable records; fabricated invoices and coded entries defeated the penalty challenge.

Ownership of seized processed fabrics was not established where the claim was raised months after seizure and was unsupported by reliable evidence. The adjudicating authority had already found the invoices relied on to be false and fabricated, and the record showed consignor and consignee particulars written in coded alphabets or numerals without corresponding transport, challan, or invoice documents. On these facts, the claim to ownership remained unproved, and the penalty order under Rule 209A was upheld against the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had established ownership of the seized processed fabrics so as to challenge the penalty imposed under Rule 209A.

Analysis: The appellants failed to produce any reliable evidence showing that the goods belonged to them. The claim was made several months after seizure, and the adjudicating authority had already recorded a specific finding that the invoices relied upon were false and fabricated. The record also showed that the consignor and consignee details were written in coded alphabets or numerals and were not supported by any valid transport, challan, or invoice documents. In these circumstances, the claim of ownership remained unproved.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and the penalty order was upheld.

---