1991 (10) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of adjudication at the hands of the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bangalore dated 16-12-1987 who absolutely confiscated the goods in question under Sec. 111(d)/111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Act' for short), besides a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied on the respondent under Sec. 112 of the Act, which on appeal was allowed by the lower appellate authority under the impugned order against which the Department has come by way of an appeal before the Tribunal.     Value   1. National Panasonic 3-band radio cassette recorder - Model No. RX 1490T Matsushits Electric - Made in Japan. 6 Nos. Rs. 9,000.00 2. National Panasonic 3-band radio cassette recorder - Model RX 1550T Made in Japan - Matsush....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the case. 3. Shri A.M. Subbayya, Ld. counsel for the respondent contended that in respect of notified goods he produced a bill dated 14-5-1985 for 15 radio cassette recorders (National) of Indian make and therefore, the respondent has established that the goods are of Indian origin. In regard to the other goods the Ld. counsel submitted that they are non-notified items and the Department has to discharge the onus that they are goods of foreign origin and further smuggled into the country. The Department has not done proper verification of the bills and, therefore, the authenticity of the same cannot be challenged. The learned counsel further submitted that the Department sold away the goods during the pendency of the disposal of the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bill would not absolve the respondent of the onus cast on him under law. The bill mentions 15 numbers whereas the goods under seizure are 8 nos. of 3 band radio cassette recorders. Shri Batra, the proprietor of M/s. Rolex Electronics System Ltd. who has issued the bill in his statement dated 9-7-1986 would merely say that he purchased the goods out of his money. This testimony would not in any way help the respondent to discharge the onus cast on him and that he had purchased and sold the goods that would not make the goods any-the-less of foreign origin, much less contraband goods unless the onus is discharged by the person concerned as per law. I, therefore, on the evidence available on record, hold that the respondent has not discharged ....