TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having Indian as well as foreign goods. The goods of Indian origin and the goods of foreign origin for which proper documents were produced were released to the claimants. The remaining goods were seized under panchanama. The appellants herein vide letter dt.24.2.2006 through Dongri Police Station claimed the ownership of the 30 digital cameras of sony and national make and 400 electric cells. It was submitted that these goods were purchased by the appellant's herein from grey market in Chennai and it was also averred that he did not pocess any legal documents and hence did not come forwarded from claiming the seized goods. After completion of the investigation, the authorities issued a show cause notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that since the goods are non-notified, there is no case for absolute confiscation of these goods. It was submitted that goods which were confiscated being non notified goods, are not liable for confiscation as Department has not proved to the goods here of smuggled nature she relies upon the decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Ganesh Enterprises as reported at [2006 (199) E.L.T. 208 (Bom.)] and also on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sunderlal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna as reported at [2004 (165) E.L.T.250 (Tri.-Kolkata)] . It is her submission that the Revenue has sold the entire confiscated goods and no notice of sales was given to the appellant. Since the entire sale procedure is deposited wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; that the goods were purchased in Chennai. However, the consignments came from Hyderabad. No. documentary evidence has been produced to show that the goods were purchased in Chennai, transported to Hyderabad and then to Mumbai. The flow of events and behaviors of the appellant does not appear to be normal or natural, therefore his conduct indicates that the appellant, by claiming the goods without making any personal appearance at any stage, has attempted to act as front man for the real operators who are behind the scene. The appellant not having any documents to prove legal procurement of the goods, the customs officers had reasons to believe that the impugned goods were liable to confiscation. The Ld. Advocate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduced and that the appellant is not the legitimate owner of the goods, but has come forward to claim the goods to serve the ulterior motives of real operators who are behind the scene. Obviously the appellant is aiding and abetting person concerned with the impugned goods and is therefore liable to penalty. Thought the goods are not notified and it is for the department to prove that they are of smuggled origin, the department cannot release them to anyone claiming them without conclusively proving their legitimate ownership". As against the above-recorded findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that even today also the appellant herein has not explained either through his Counsel or in appeal memorandum, as to how, t....