TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and whether the order of confiscation with redemption fine and further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, is sustainable. 2. The brief facts are that on the basis of intelligence, DRI, Lucknow Regional Unit intercepted a consignment of readymade garments, which had been booked under Railway Parcel way Bills No.146537 & 146540 dated 07/03/2013 for transportation from Kolkata to New Delhi by Train No.12313, being 52 parcels packed in HDPE packets. The Officers of DRI, Lucknow intercepted the consignment on 8^th March, 2013 at Kanpur and pursuant to handing of detention memo to Chief Parcel Supervisor, Kanpur Central, were unloaded at Kanpur Central railway station from the train and brought to the Parcel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted was mentioned as readymade garments. The name of the consignor and consignee was mentioned as M/s Om Merchants Pvt. Ltd. The address of M/s Om Merchants Pvt. Ltd. mentioned on PW Bills were found different from the address mentioned on the letterhead by the appellant for correspondence with the DRI. Further written communication dated was received on 02^nd September, 2013 from the appellant by DRI, wherein they submitted that the seized goods were legally imported by them under the bill of entry dated 8th November, 2012 and another Bill of Entry dated 18^th October, 2012 and out of which 52 lots were supplied in the Indian market, copies of Bill of Entry were enclosed. It further stated that 57 packets of readymade garments from the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods could not be co-related with the imported goods, as the supplier's invoices and packing list do not mention the name of the brands, size, etc. of the garments. It was also alleged that the appellant did not produce any behati and/or documents supporting transportation of goods from land customs station to Sealdah (Kolkata). 3. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated on contest and vide order in original dated 20^th December, 2013, the goods were held liable to confiscation, being of foreign origin readymade garments valued at Rs. 15,30,225/- under Section 111 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of fine Rs. 3,80,000/- and further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the appellant - M/s Om Merchants Pvt. Ltd. under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the whole Show Cause Notice is unsustainable. The goods were detained at Kanpur railway station, which is just a Town seizure. Further the goods being not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proof that the goods are by way of illicit import or smuggled, lies on the Revenue, which it has failed to discharge. The evidences produced by the appellants, as regards import and the transport of goods, have been rejected by Revenue on flimsy grounds and as such the impugned order is vitiated and fit to be set aside. The learned counsel further states that putting of labels of reputed brands does not alter the situation, and it was the Revenue, which has failed to discharge the onus to prima-facie make out a case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h July, 2013 i.e. for about 3 months and accordingly the contentions of the appellants are not tenable. Further, observing that as no sufficient material much less any material has been placed on record to substantiate the stand of the appellant, the conclusions of the Commissioner, as affirmed by the CEGAT cannot be faulted as observed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Vrindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Others 2007 5 SCC 388. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I hold that as the readymade garments in question, being not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, were freely importable. It is well settled that initial burden to prove smuggling of non-notified ....