2005 (9) TMI 519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 2.00 lakhs has been confiscated absolutely under the provisions of Section 121 of Customs Act, 1962. Penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs has been imposed upon the appellants under the provisions of Section 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. As per the facts on record, the officers at Domestic Airport intercepted one passenger Shri Parminder Singh on 28-6-2000. Search of the said passenger resulted in to recovery and seizure of foreign origin of US $ 9,006. The said person in his statement deposed that the foreign currency seized by the officers was purchased by him from the appellants. 3. As a result of post seizure investigation, the shop premises of the appellant were put to search on 29-6-2000 and Mobile Phones and acce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the finance for the foreign trips was arranged by his relative and closed family friends. 4. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellants proposing confiscation of the foreign origin Mobile Phones and the Indian currency as also for imposition of penalty. 5. During the course of adjudication, the appellant contended that he was having technical expertise and know-how of the functions of all the different models of cellular/mobile phones and he undertook job work of service and repairs of the same. He also contended that he was buying defective/damaged as well as new Mobile Phones from the market and all the transactions were on credit basis, as such, Mobile Phones seized from his premises were meant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... prove by production of evidence that the goods were, in fact brought into the country without payment of duty. The appellant in his on-the-spot statement, as also in the subsequent statement has admitted that he was in knowledge of the fact that the Mobile Phones being purchased by him from the open market were smuggled. He also disclosed name of the person "K.P." from whom he had purchased that some of the Mobile Phones at a value lower than the market value inasmuch as Customs duty was not paid on the same. In these circumstances, the onus to prove that the goods in question were not smuggled shifts to the appellants. It is also seen that the Mobile Phones were huge in number and the appellant has not been able to produce any documentary....