1986 (7) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ording to the Collector arises out of the order in the appeal referred to above. 2. We heard Shri Senthivel as well as Shri Nankani. During the hearing Shri Senthivel was questioned regarding point number (2) in Annexure 'B'. He has to concede that no question of law has been formulated against that point. The Department had set out the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoormal (AIR 1974 SC 859). Relying upon the judgment cited above, Shri Senthivel contended that the Department has sufficiently discharged the initial burden by circumstantial evidence and there was concurrent findings of facts by the two authorities below and in the absence of evidence to show that they were perverse or ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of any of the provisions of the Customs Act or the Rules made thereunder. A perusal of the order would go to show that the provisions of Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act were not attracted to the seized goods. In the circumstances, it was observed that the initial burden of establishing that the seized goods were smuggled goods lies on the Department. The two authorities had relied on certain circumstances to come to the conclusion that the goods seized were smuggled goods. On behalf of the Appellants, it was contended that the two authorities have based their findings on presumptions and surmises. On the basis of misdeclaration in respect of one consignment the two authorities concluded that there had been misdeclaration i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not be sufficient and there should be further evidence to show that the Appellants knew or had reason to believe that they were illegally imported. 6. The concept of concurrent finding pertains to the domain of second appeal. Under the Civil Procedure Code, second appeal lies to the High Court on a question of law alone "and after the amendment of Section 100 by Act No. 104 of 1976 second appeal would lie to the High Court only if the High Court was satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. So far as the Tribunal is concerned no such fetter is found in the Customs Act. it is significant to note that the revision application filed before the Government of India stood transferred to the Tribunal to be heard as an....