2005 (8) TMI 563

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 297.60 Kgs. of Tasar Silk valued at Rs. 3,38,088/- from M/s. Priti Silk, Varanasi under Bill No. MRS/16 dated 29-4-2002. The appellant also purchased 293.99 Kgs. of Mulbery Raw Silk Yarn valued at Rs. 3,38,088/- from the said concern under Bill No. MRS/18 dated 30-4-2002 and 19273 dated 29-4-2002 who in turn booked consignment to the appellant by train under R.R. No. 468318 dated 1-5-2002. The representative of M/s. Krishna Cargo Movers accompanied the goods to Varanasi to Bhagalpur. At Patna Rly. Station, the officers of Customs unloaded the consignment. The representative of M/s. Krishna Cargo Movers produced the relevant documents in connection with the transportation of the goods from Varanasi to Bhagalpur but the officers did not giv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal) Therefore, he prays that the appeal may be allowed. 2. Learned JDR supports the impugned order. He submits that the appellant submitted in proper challan issued by consignor not having dated Sl. Nos. and issued on two different dates whereas the consignment were booked on the same day. There was a mis-declaration of goods on Rly. Receipt. The R.R. does not contain company addresses nor any proof of payment was produced. Therefore, he submits that the goods have been rightly confiscated and he prays that the appeal may be dismissed. 3. The Silk Yarn is not a notified item under Section 23 of Customs Act. Therefore, the burden of proof that the goods were smuggled is on Department/Revenue. The Revenue must prove tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant. On the contrary, the appellant has submitted certain documents to establish that they were legally imported by M/s. Priti Silk through Kolkata and Chennai port under proper Bill of Entry. There may be some discrepancy in weight or numbers but it is not established by such discrepancy that the goods were imported in a clandestine manner by the appellant. Failure to show legal acquisition of the yarn in question cannot improve the Revenue's case and insisted upon the same would defeat the very purpose of not notifying under provision of Section 123 as held in the case of Motiur Rahman & Others v. C.C. (Prev.), Patna reported in 2001 (47) RLT 353. Similar view was taken in case of Dhun Darabshaw Randeria v. Commr. of Customs (Preventiv....