TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs (Preventive). The officers also searched godown of the appellant located at 599, Hamilton Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. On demand of the officers, as the appellant could not produce documentary evidence or otherwise showing lawful import, acquisition, possession in respect of the goods, which appeared to be of foreign origin, the same were seized under Panchnama, valued at Rs.92,73,350/-. Further, Indian currency of Rs.14,10,990 available in the cash box of the shop was also seized. The goods and currency were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the belief that the appellant have imported/acquired /possessed the goods in contravention of the Exim Policy 2004-2009 read with Standard of Weights and Measures Act (SWM Act) and Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977. 2. The statement of the appellant-Raj Kumar Batra was recorded on the spot on 6.1.2008 under Section 108 of the Act, who, inter alia, stated that he is the sole proprietor of 'Music Palace' and is dealing in trade of car stereo, speakers, etc. As regards non-availability of the invoices/bills etc. in support of the goods, he stated that these are not available with him as in the recent search, the DRI offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Parth Marketing and is engaged in imports and domestic sales of electronic goods including car stereo, LCD, speakers, etc. That he was also partner of M/s. Chinmay Corporation, Ahmedabad. That he imports goods from Singapore and Hongkong and had supplied the goods valued at Rs.1,08,030/- to Shri Raj Kumar of M/s. Music Palace, Delhi. He had submitted three bills of entries of March/July/September, 2007 covering imports of various music systems like Kenwood KFC, Cone Type Speakers, JVC, Cone Type Speaker and Formula 7.7" Sunvisor LCD Car and had also supplied such goods to Mr. Raj Kumar of Music Palace. Further, stated that he had not issued any sales invoice for the said goods and had received the payment in cash through Angaria( Courier). 6. Further, the statement of the appellant was recorded on 3.2.2008 , wherein, He, inter alia, stated that Shri Sushil Aggarwal was not the owner of M/s. Ashish Panchal, Ahmedabad but the owner of other two firms viz. M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation, Ahmedabad. That a person of Shri Sushil Agarwal used to come and collect the payment from his shop. That the identity of the person was made known over phone by Shri Sushil Agarwal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the cardboard boxes/packages, quantity and name of the item was printed. In further statement recorded on 10.04.2008, the appellant stated that he would be able to correlate the seized goods with the documents only after receipt of the documents resumed by the DRI. 9. Further, follow-up action investigation was done at (i) M/s. Carion Communication (P) Ltd., Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi and (ii) M/s. M.R. Electronic Corporation, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. 9.1 Shri Uma Shankar, Accountant & Authorised Signatory of M/s. Carion Cummunication (P) Ltd. - had stated that they are engaged in manufacture and registered under Central Excise and further stated that M/s. M.R. Electronics is a trading firm and owner of brand "AMEZ". They were not engaged in selling/purchasing of imported goods. M/s. M.R. Electronics trades in electronic goods like car cassette player, amplifier, AM/FM Radio, etc. of Indian origin. 9.2 M/s. Tokyo Sales Corporation, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - Shri Inder Preet Singh Sahani, Partner of M/s. Tokyo Sales Corporation, inter alia, stated that they were importers of TFT LCD/Monitor/Screens from China. They made the sales to various retailers/deal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dity Rules, shall be subject to compliance of all the provisions of the said Rules, when imported into India. The compliance of these shall be ensured before the import consignment of such commodities is cleared by Customs for home consumption. The packaged commodities are required to contain (a) name and address of the importer, (b) generic or common name of the commodity packed; (c ) net quantity in terms of standard unit of weights and measures. If the net quantity in the imported packages is given in any other units, its equivalent in terms of standard unit shall be declared by the importer, (d ) month and year of packing in which the commodity is manufactured or packed or imported; and (e) maximum retail sale price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer. This price shall include all taxes local or otherwise, freight, transport charges, commission payable to dealers and all charges towards advertising, delivery, packing, forwarding and the like, as the case may be. 11. It further appeared that as the goods found in the shops/godown of the appellant, the requirement of SWM Act read with the Rules have not been complied with, thus such goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of the transporters viz. M/s. ABC Transport. Mr. Sushil Agarwal has also admitted having trade relations with the appellant. It is further urged that confiscation of cash recovered from the shop/godown premises is bad. Out of the total cash found and seized, the appellant had led evidence that Rs.14,10,000/- belongs to his mother-in-law and filed evidence in support of the same, which was not found untrue. So far the issue of producing documents in support of purchase/stock found in the premises of the appellant is concerned, the appellant had produced few current invoices and stated that few days back, there was search by DRI on 19.12.2021, and they have resumed the documents for further investigation. Accordingly, as the documents were lying with the Revenue, the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. Thus, there is no failure on the part of the appellant to produce the documents in support of the stock in his shop/godown. Rather it is failure of the Revenue, as they have not referred to the seized documents, which was available with the Department. Further, urged that Revenue has erred in relying upon the retracted statement of the appellant. The appellant have retract....