2012 (5) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....set aside the order for confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty. 2. After giving details as to how 62 pieces of mobiles and 38 pieces of earphones of foreign origin were first recovered near Patna from one Chandresh Chopra on 12.12.2002 while he was traveling from Chennai and how on his disclosure, further 62 pieces of mobiles of foreign origin were recovered from the residential premises of Shri Manish Kakrania and their failure to produce any document regarding valid acquisition of the goods leading to seizure, the Tribunal has noted that the goods were not notified goods either under Chapter 4 (a) or under Section 123 of the Customs Act and hence, the burden was on the Revenue to prove that those goods were smuggled g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Section 123 of the Act. There is no quarrel with such general proposition of law. The Court has further observed that if the goods are dutiable and have not suffered customs duty, the burden of proving that the goods have suffered duty is on the person from whom it is sought to be seized by the Department. Clearly, this pre-supposes that as a fact the Customs authorities have found by some evidence that the goods are dutiable and have not suffered customs duty. In such eventuality, as per that judgment the departmental authorities are not required to prove with mathematical precision that the goods are smuggled. That judgment, in our view, does not lay down a different law than what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of....