2000 (7) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation and imposition of penalty on Kishore V. Vithalani and Afzal Ismail Lakadawala who are partners of the firm M/s. Component Supplies. The Additional Collector of Customs, after considering the cause shown, and hearing the appellant, has ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties on the appellants of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112(b)(i) of the Act. The appeal against this order having been dismissed by the Collector (Appeals), the appellants are before us. 2. It is the contention of the common advocate for both the appellants that there is no material whatsoever to conclude that the goods are smuggled. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Act and the burden of proving that they are smuggled, which wou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uits which they sold to him were part of a large consignment landed by sea at south coast and thus smuggled into India. He says that from the knowledge of integrated circuits he could also make out that they were of foreign origin and smuggled ones. 5. These statements do not impel us to conclude that the goods had been smuggled into India. Vithalani knew nothing about Rakesh and Rajesh more than their names. He says they were virtually strangers to him. Why such strangers should decide to inform him about the place and mode of smuggling of integrated circuits that they sold to him, is to say the least, intriguing and difficult to believe. Again how they came to know that these were smuggled at some point in "south coast" is another....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant paid cash for the goods and bought from unknown persons does not itself establish that they were smuggled. We are satisfied that the burden of proof that they were smuggled has not been discharged. Therefore, none of the goods could be confiscated under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. 7. By notification, the provisions of Chapter 1VA were made applicable to transistors and therefore the appellant was required to maintain records, source of acquisition of the goods and intimate the place of storage to the goods and otherwise comply with the requirement of Chapter IVA. It is not denied that this requirement has not been complied with. 8. We are unable to accept the argument that the seizing officer has sai....