1991 (3) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in valuing Rs. 1,029/-) and Indian currency of Rs. 20,800/-from the residential premises of Shri Ranjit Mukherjee, appellant, at No. 12 Rajendra Avenue, 2nd Lane, Uttarpara, Hooghly, on 9-1-1981. The same were seized by the departmental officials on information received by them that the appellants are carrying on sale of smuggled goods. A show cause notice was issued as to why they should not be confiscated and the appellants filed their reply and after adjudication the impugned order was passed. 2. The learned counsel Shri Jadugopal Dutta, appearing for the appellants, contended before us that the confiscation of the pant length, shirtings and watches and the amount seized were not in accordance with law. He contended that the appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uary 1981. It was, therefore, contended that the imposition of heavy penalty was justified. 4. We have heard both sides. The point that arises for our determination are - (i) Whether the confiscation of the pant lengths and shirtings and watches are in accordance with law; (ii) Whether the confiscation of the amount of Rs. 20,800/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act, is legal; (iii) Whether the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Ranjit Mukherjee and Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Madhusudan Mukherjee is justifiable. 5. Point No. (i) - Since the seizure was made on an information received by the department and the goods being notified goods, the onus had shifted on to the appellants to prove that these are not smuggled goods. The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t that the account books of the appellant showed some transactions of cloths and T.D.K. Cassettes, there is no presumption that these were smuggled goods. There is also nothing to show that this amount was the sale proceeds of such smuggled goods. In the absence of such reliable evidence, the confiscation of the above said amount is not in accordance with law. The currency notes are not notified items and, therefore, it was for the department to initially show that this amount represents the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. Merely because the account books of the appellant showed some transactions, there is no presumption that these transactions related to smuggled goods. Accordingly, we set aside the confiscation of the amount of Rs. 20,80....