2000 (9) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....loyee of M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders was imposed under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act. A Matador vehicle, belonging to M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders, was also confiscated under Sec. 115 of the Customs Act and the appellants were given an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. two lakh. 3. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders are in the business of courier/transporter of parcels/documents. On 30-12-97, the vehicle number DL-2CF-0639, belonging to M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders, was intercepted by the Customs authorities and on search of the vehicle, 54 cardboard boxes wrapped with paper adhesive tape alongwith other packages were recovered. On scrutiny cardboard boxes were found containing cell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tention is that these parcels were deposited by various consigners for supply at various destinations and the appellants were only paid charges for their transportation. He submits that the goods were not notified under Sec. 123 of the Customs Act or falls under Chapter IV of the Customs Act, therefore, the burden of proof that the goods were of smuggled nature, is on the department and not on the appellants. He submits that the goods, in question, as per Policy 1997-2001, were under OGL. He submits that the revenue authorities also made enquiries in respect of the consigners of the goods and the goods in respect of one of the consigners i.e. M/s. Superfast Courier, were released unconditionally as they produced evidence in respect of legal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants and the appellants had not produced any document in respect of legal import of the goods and reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The appellants are not claiming the goods, in question, nor challenged the order of confiscation. The appellants are challenging the penalties imposed on them and the confiscation of vehicle. The contention of the appellants is that the goods are not notified under provisions of Sec. 123 of the Customs Act nor under Chapter IV of the Customs Act and are allowed to be imported freely under OGL. This fact is not disputed by the revenue. Therefore, the burden of proof that the goods are of smuggled nature, is on the Customs Authorities. The Tribunal in ....