2025 (7) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The facts of the case are that the premise of the appellant was searched and seized 352 Rolls (assorted colour and size) coated Textile Fabric alleged to have Taiwan/China Origin on the reasonable belief that the impugned goods have been imported in India rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act read with Section 11 of the Act and Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 2.1. During investigation, summons were issued to the appellant stating that the goods in question are procured on stock lot basis from the local market by the erstwhile accountant and purchase invoices has been misplaced by him and requested for taking a lenient view with respect of an early release of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that the adjudication order passed by the adjudicating authority is the culmination of a patently illegal proceedings initiated under the Act against the appellant, in gross abuse of powers conferred upon the adjudicating authority. He further submits that the adjudicating authority did not consider that th show-cause notice dated 29.11.2021 has been issued in an arbitrary and whimsical fashion with a prejudged mind set which has got no factual sanctity in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Lt. vs Union of Indiareported in 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... lot. 3.3 He further submits that no representative samples were drawn to ascertain the country of origin of the impugned goods. Moreover, the Revenue admitted that from the contemporaneous DOV data, no such import of similar goods from Taiwan could be seen, this fact has also been acknowledged by the department in the purported Show-cause notice as well as in the impugned Order. 3.4 It is also his submission that the goods are not notified items in terms of Section 123 of the Act. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the Department to prove that the impugned goods are smuggled in nature. 3.5 Finally, he submits that the goods are not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant. 4. On the ....