2009 (9) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this Appeal against the impugned order whereby 526 tins each containing 14 Kgs. of palm oil were confiscated on the ground that the same were smuggled into India and personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was imposed on the Appellant. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 10-10-2004 the officers of Revenu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods in question are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act hence the burden of proof to show that the goods are smuggled into India is on the Revenue and Revenue has not discharged its burden. The Revenue filed Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Appeal filed by the Revenue and confiscated the palm oil on the ground that the same is smuggled into....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mport of the goods in question. Hence the impugned order is rightly passed. 7. In reply the contention of Appellant is that the driver was apprehended on the on 10-10-04 along with the truck as narrated in the show cause notice. However a statement was recorded on 11-10-2004 that to say that goods were smuggled from Bangladesh. In his statement he has not disclosed the source of information. In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nk drafts. The present Appellant in his statement stated that the goods were stored in his godown and he is trading in palm oil and other goods. In the statement of the driver there is only mention that goods were smuggled from Bangladesh. There is no mention of the source of this information. It is not the case of the Revenue that the driver was instructed by the owner of the goods i.e. present A....