Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (4) TMI 1144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the parcels in presence of independent Panchas, the same were found to be containing copper scrap in form of old and used parts of radiators. The goods valued at Rs. 1,07,700/- and Rs. 81,900/- were seized on the ground that the same were of third country origin and had been imported illicitly from Nepal. In this regard, the officers had obtained an opinion from the trader M/s. Bharat Trading Company, Aishbagh, Lucknow. The consignor of both the parcels was the appellant Shri Shamshad Ahmed. Subsequently, Shri Shamshad Ahmed wrote to the Assistant Commissioner claiming that the goods seized are of Indian origin and that the same had been purchased from M/s. Azad Radiators, M/s. Punjab Radiators and M/s. Krishna Motors of Siliguri. Inqui....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad not supplied any copper scrap to the appellant, it cannot be concluded that the goods are of third country origin illicitly imported from Nepal, and that in view of this, the impugned order upholding confiscation of the goods and imposing penalty on the appellant is not correct. He also pleaded that the goods not being covered Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving that the same are of smuggled origin is of the department and this burden of proof has not been discharged by the department and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 2.2 Mrs. Rimjhim Prasad, the learned Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the Commissioner (Appeal)'s findings and emphasized that....