1999 (4) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had no documentary evidence to prove the licit acquisition and possession of the imported goods. Later at the stage of adjudication, the appellant took a plea that the watches of foreign origin were purchased from passengers who had cleared them on payment of duty and the watches fixed with foreign origin movements were assembled in India. The appellant repeated the plea before the Commissioner (Appeals) also. The authorities below did not accept the contention of the appellant and the Com- missioner (Appeals) in the impugned order observed that both wrist watches and watch movements are notified items under Section 11 of the Customs Act and they are also covered under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the onus was on the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....import of watch movements as well as watches. The adjudicating authority as well as the first Appellate Authority had not taken into account the said documents and had not given any finding as to why the said documents should not be relied upon except the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that the appellants should have kept the record of the documents and produced them before the Seizing Officer. Ld. Counsel had also drawn and relied upon the Tribunal's decision in Standard Watch Company v. Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 571 in which Tribunal had observed that merely because movements of watches were of foreign origin, watches assembled in India with movements of watches of foreign origin cannot be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... nor does he know their name and address. He further draw attention to the fact that the cash memo issued by the Central Excise Retail Shop produced by the appellants as proof of import of watch movements by pointing out the said cash memo is dated 7-6-1991 wheras the seizure had taken place on 28-7-1995. As regards the case law relied on by the appellant, ld. JDR submitted that there was no dispute in the present case as to whether the watches assembled in India with foreign watch movements were to be considered as watches of foreign origin. The issue here was that both the watches and watch movements were prohibited items under Section 11 of the Customs Act items whose import is regulated under Section 123 of the Customs Act. It was incum....