2018 (4) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals are filed against the same impugned order, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the. basis of specific information, the officers of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Cochin seized a foreign origin 'Honda Veradaro XL-1000 CC motorcycle having registration No.KL-40-D-6064 and Chassis No.VTMSD02C07E821804 from the appellant Shri N.R. Roshiban, on the reasonable belief that the same was smuggled into India in violation of provisions of law. On 01/08/2014, officers of the Department approached the wife of the appellant and sought details of the vehicle and demanded the Bill of Entry of the vehicle alleging that the vehicle is of foreign origin and issued a detention order. The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the vehicle and also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 1 12(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dropped the demand of duty but upheld the redemption fine and penalty. Hence the present appeal. 3.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned  order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the statutory provisions of the Customs Act and also contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that both the authorities have failed to appreciate that the motorcycle is not falling under the list of notified goods and merely because the vehicl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e that appellant has aided and abetted the importer in the illegal import. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Bill of Entry No.40820 dt 01/05/2008 of Calcutta Customs which is claimed as the import documents for registration of vehicle was found to be forged one. He further submitted that the actual Bill of Entry of that number pertained to import of door assemblies imported by M/S. India Airlines Ltd. and Shri Ganapathi Raman never visited Calcutta for import of vehicle and the letters and affidavit produced before the RTO, Raigad were fabricated and he never stayed outside kerala on his return from Qatar in September 2007. He also stated that Shri Ganapathi Raman in his statement dt.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I also find that the motor bike involved in the present case is not a notified goods and in the case of no notified goods, the burden is on the Department to produce evidence that the goods were illegally imported and not the person from whose possession such goods are seized. No doubt the Department has produced evidence in the present case that the said vehicle was imported under a forged Bill of Entry but the Department has not been able to establish that the appellant has forged the Bill of Entry in the name of Ganapathi Raman. Further I find that the adjudicating authority at Cochin has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter because the show-cause notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Cochin whereas the evidenc....