TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (7) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... different persons without bill/invoice. These Clocks were confiscated under an adjudication order dated 23-10-2000 for being illegally smuggled into India and Shri Bajaj did not have any Bill/Invoice to prove the legal possession of the goods. Shri Bajaj filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the adjudication order holding that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. 2. Appellant challenges the above order on the ground that it is neither sustainable in law nor in the facts of the case. It is being submitted that Clocks in question were eligible for restricted import and that the appellant had purchased the goods on the day previous to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and had given particulars of the import and had stated that the goods had been sold by him to Shri Bajaj. His statement that goods were sold only on 5-2-99 was incorrect. 3. The learned SDR has pointed out that these goods required licence for import and since the appellant could not produce any evidence about their legal import on the date of search and since the invoice subsequently produced has been stated to be of a subsequent date, the confiscation of the goods was justified. He also pointed out that watches remain specified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and if that entry did not cover alarm clocks another entry (electronics goods) under Section 123 would cover them and in either case, burden of proof regarding legal impor....