TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1958 (9) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shop, "School View Stores". On 23-10-1956 the officers of the Customs Department searched the shop as well as the house occupied by Cassim, one of the partners, and seized a number of articles on suspicion, that these goods had been smuggled into the country contrary to the regulations in force. After an investigation, notice was served on the petitioner to show cause why the goods listed in that notice should not be confiscated as smuggled goods. After an enquiry the Assistant Collector recorded :- "In reply to the show cause memo issued to him Mr. Cassim stated that the goods in his possession which were normally available through trade channels should be presumed to be legally acquired by him. The explanation of Mr. Cassim is not sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; 3. It should be noted that nine items of the articles seized on 23-10-1956 were ordered to be returned. The order of the Assistant Collector embodied a tabular statement of all the goods seized and the last column showed the result of the enquiries with reference to each of the items, which apparently furnished the basis for the release of some of the articles seized and for the confiscation of the others. 4. It was to these factors that the Collector referred in his appellate order. The Collector stated : "As regards the articles confiscated by the Assistant Collector of Customs the department has established that the covering documents produced by the appellant do not relate to the articles. For this purpose references given....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Control Order, 1955 which ran : "Save as otherwise provided in this Order, no person shall import any goods of the description specified in Schedule I except under and in accordance with a licence or Customs clearance permit granted by the Central Government or by any officer specified in Schedule II". It should also be remembered that it was never the case of the Department that the petitioner himself had imported any of the goods in question. 7. Certainly the authorities were entitled to reject as unproved the plea of the petitioner that these goods had been acquired by the petitioner through the normal trade channels in the open market. But that does not necessarily establish that either the goods had been illegally imported or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to these features only to emphasise that neither the description of the goods nor the quantity of these goods was sufficient to indicate that these goods could not have been acquired by a trader in the position of the petitioner in the open market in India. To take again another example, the position might have been different if, instead of being asked to account for the purchase of nine nylon shirts, the petitioners had had to account for the acquisition of stock of nine thousand shirts, of which nine remained unsold at the time of the seizure. What really happened was that every article, irrespective of the quantity, the purchase of which the petitioner did not prove to the satisfaction of the Customs authorities, was held to be smug....