TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs, located at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. On 13-10-99, its premises were searched by the officers of Customs. They seized about 52,000 pieces of ball bearings of assorted sizes of foreign origin. The goods were collectively valued around Rs. 55.5 lakh. M/s. J.P. Bearing Co. could not produce any document relating to import of these goods. Subsequently, statements were recorded from partners of J.P. Bearing Co. as to how they had acquired the goods in question. It was their explanation that they purchased the goods from various dealers through brokers and that part of the goods had been sold by the Customs Authorities. Some bills relating to purchase and particulars of payments for the goods were also produced. Accepting these explanations, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....produce any legal evidence of acquisition, possessing, purchasing, keeping, etc., of the goods. Learned Counsel also pointed out that apart from the fact that Revenue has failed to marshal any positive evidence suggestive of the smuggling of the goods, it has, in fact, accepted the appellants' claim that half the goods had been acquired in the normal course. According to the learned Counsel, the position is that the Revenue has not accepted the appellant's bona fide explanation about purchase of the goods through brokers in respect of the confiscated goods. The learned Counsel has stressed that this is no ground for confiscation of the goods under the Customs Act. That confiscation calls for a finding based on positive evidence that the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia. In fact, the materials which have come on record suggest to the contrary. Originally, about 52,000 ball bearings had been seized. During investigation the appellants produced several bills in order to show how the goods had been acquired. The Customs authorities themselves accepted those bills in respect of about half the goods and released them. The claim in respect of the remaining goods had been rejected on the ground that the bills could not be verified and the parties did not answer to the summons issued. This cannot lead to the conclusion that the remaining goods were smuggled. It only means that the appellants' explanation about the source could not be verified and confirmed. Learned Counsel for the appellants is right in his s....