2017 (11) TMI 1527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Technical) Shri A.P. Mathur (Advocate) for Appellant(s) Shri Mohd. Altaf (Assistant Commissioner) AR for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary Heard the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the findings of this Tribunal contained in the Final Order dated 29.07.2015 being Final Order No.53724-53737/2015 wherein it has been held as follo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... did not carry MRP". We find that Revenue has not been able to discharge this onus. Even if the appellants had not produced any Bills of Entry to show the licit import of the impugned goods, they would not have been worse of because it is Revenue's onus to establish smuggled nature of goods and there is no evidence in the Show Cause Notice or in the impugned order which even prima facie discharged....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, placing reliance on the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pacific India Trade Concern v/s CC (Preventive) 2014(307) ELT 650 (Del.), is contrary to the findings and the reliance on the ruling of the High Court is misplaced. Admittedly, it is a case of wrong confiscation of seized goods which were not seized at the time of import clearance or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of such findings, holding the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is misplaced and erroneous, leading to miscarriage of Justice. Accordingly, we allow these Misc. Applications, modifying the Final Order and holding that under the facts and circumstances the goods in question are not liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. Accordingly, no redemption ....