TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere heard analogously. 2.The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus : (a) On 23rd April, 1995 a vehicle was intercepted by the Customs Officers and it was found that 80 bags of plastic granules of Korean origin contained therein. As a follow up action, the business premises of M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm were searched and 360 bags of plastic graules of foreign origin were sized. (b) During the course of investigation, Sri Rajesh Agarwal, one of the partners of M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm submitted that they had purchased the said imported raw material from M/s. Kaiser Marbles and he also produced document relating to the purchase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th June, 1995 of their supplies M/s. Concentra, Hongkong confirming that the said lot numbers did not pertain to the invoice dated 21st May, 1994. (e) On the basis of the above enquiry, the Revenue entertained a view that the goods in question were not the same that had been imported by M/s. Kamal & Co. and accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 20th October, 1995 for confiscation of those goods and for imposition of personal penalty. (f) Those two show cause notices were adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 20th March, 1997 confiscating absolutely the goods under seizure imposing personal penalty of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fax was stated to be one C.W. Lee. It is rightly pointed out by the Tribunal that identity of C.W. Lee is neither indicated nor did the signature appear on the fax. The name of the organization represented by C.W. Lee is also not indicated. The Tribunal has further recorded that the Customs vide letter dated 25th May, 1995 had addressed the fax to the Sales Manager, the Petro Chemical Industrial Company, South Korea with a request to oblige by return fax the date of manufacture of lot numbers II 55735 and J 55736 of polypropylene 1008813 grade. This fax message has been followed up by fax reminder dated 31st May, 1995 by drawing attention of M. Goh, Sales Manager of Petro Chemical Industrial Co. Ltd., South Korea. The Tribunal has furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and we do not find existence of any substantial question of law to interfere with the finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal which is quite in conformity with the materials on record. 9.In the case of Collector of Customs (Bombay) v. East Punjab Traders reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.), relied upon by Mr. Mukherjee, some documents were obtained by the Indian Customs Officers during their visit to Japan for enquiry and photocopies of those documents did not bear any signature. In such a situation, the Supreme Court held that when the authenticity of photocopies of the documents itself is suspected, the presumption under Section 139(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not available, specially, when the documents had not come fro....