TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re that on the basis of information, the Customs officers intercepted a truck No. WB 11/3811 which was parked outside the godown of M/s. Varanasi Indore Roadlines. Shri Munna, proprietor of the Roadlines, was supervising unloading of packets from the truck. The search of the godown and truck resulted in seizure of 17 packets containing foreign origin silk yarn. The officers seized the 17 packets and the truck. The goods were claimed by M/s. New Paradise Silk Cooperative Society Ltd. on 2-8-2000. Shri Mohd. Hanif Ansari, Chairman deposed in his statement dated 11-8-2000 that while attending EXPO at Calcutta in February, 2000, he met one Mr. Binoy representative of M/s. Fairdeal Enterprises and Delhi party M/s. Kunal International and asked h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ob work basis. On a query from the Bench as to whether the goods in question has been purchased by them or they are the owners of the goods, the learned Advocate replied that they had not purchased the goods as the same had been sent to them on job work basis, being the master weaver. The learned Advocate, further, mentioned that the Commissioner has wrongly confiscated the goods in question as the burden to prove the smuggled nature of the goods lies on the department; that they are aggrieved person as the goods had been consigned to them and as consignee they have the right to the goods. 4. Countering the arguments Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that as the goods in question are not owned b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejected. 6. Shri M.P. Singh, learned Advocate submitted on behalf of Munna that Munna is only proprietor of Varanasi Indore Roadlines against whom provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked; that the provisions of the said section can be invoked only when the person concerned knows that the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act; that the impugned order does not indicate as to what was the act of omission or commission committed by Munna to make him liable for penalty. He also mentioned that even according to the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order Munna was only involved in unloading of the smuggled goods. 7. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conduct of Munna goes to show that he was aware of the smuggled nature of the goods; that when the Customs Officers reached the Varanasi Indore Roadlines, Munna repeatedly tried to run away and one of the Customs officers had to fire a warning shot from his service revolver to stop him; that when the officers were in the process of taking the truck to the Customs office, Varanasi, a Police jeep arrived there with 7 to 8 persons of whom were in uniform; that one of the Police officer, who was in uniform, tried to snatch the service revolver of the Customs officer and even opened the door of the Government Gypsy letting three apprehended persons to fly away from the spot. The learned Senior Departmental Representative, further, submitted that....