2018 (8) TMI 1944

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... statement was recorded wherein he submitted that some of the ornaments were purchased from the persons who came to his shop for sale of the same, some were received from customers for cleaning and/or repairs and few are also kept as security against some borrowings i.e. 'BANDHAKI'. Show cause notice dated 28-1-2016 was issued on the premises that why the seized goods valued at Rs. 3,11/797/- should not be confiscated in terms of Section 111(b) of the Act and penalty should not be imposed upon him in terms of Section 112(a)/112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority confiscated seized silver jewellery in terms of Section 111(b). He however gave an option to redeem the silver jewellery on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s if all the 180 packets had wrapping papers on which the amount is mentioned only in Nepali currency. If it was so, there was no reason to suppress such papers from becoming an essential relied upon document instead of making a vague mention "related to Nepal Description". 3. The Learned DR reiterates the orders of the Lower Authorities. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that the allegations made in the SCN have been adjudicated in a mechanical way and the Commissioner (A) has upheld it in a more perfunctory and mechanical manner. In the SCN it was alleged that the appellant is liable to penalty as well as his goods are liable to confiscation for violation of Ss 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to have examined the allegation and its gravity candidly in a quasi judicial manner as expected of. On the other hand, the first appellate authority not only confirmed the views of the adjudicating officer rather transgressed the limitation of the SCN by saying that he has even found the names and addresses on the paper wrappings which were disclosed neither in the SCN nor the adjudicating officer could be able to detect it. The appellant has stated the truth that he had purchased some old ornaments from Nepali citizens unaware of their citizenship then it could be only due to unawareness and only a meagre portion of the seized lot could be so, because in majority of the cases the customers are the local ladies of Jogbani. The confiscati....