TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could be ascertained and confirmed. Further, I find that the appellant has failed to adduce any new fact or document on record which could substantiate the claim of the appellant regarding the ownership over the seized goods. In view of the above, I find that the appellant has not been able to prove its claim over the absolutely confiscated Silver granules and I hold that the appellant does not have any locus-standi in the present case of seizure. The appeal filed by the appellant is thus rejected being devoid of any merit." 2.1 The Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) officers, Kakrahawa on 29.07.2021 recovered a bag containing silver in granular form weighing 39.955 kg of 99.9% purity valued at Rs.27,94,852/-. There was no claimant for the said bag. The bag was handed over to the Customs Officers, Kakrahawa who seized the same on 30.07.2021 under a belief that the same has been smuggled into India from across the border and is liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.2 The Appellant vide their application dated 25.08.2021 claimed ownership of the seized goods and requested for provisional release in their favour. The said request was rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1;रतीत होती है तथा उपरोक्त वैर्णित धाराओ एवं अधिसूचना के उल्लंघन के लिए उपरोक्त "जिस किसी से सम्बंधित हो" (नोटिसी सं. 1) सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 112 के अंतर्गत दंड के पात्र है। 7. अतः उपरोक्त नोटिसीज "जिस किसी से ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2367;सूचना के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन करने के कारण इसी अधिनियम की धारा 112 के अंतर्गत जुर्माना लगाया जाये।" 2.4 After the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, Appellant again filed their application dated 23.03.2022 again claiming the ownership of the said seized goods and requested for provisional release in his favour which was again rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow vide Order dated 31.05.2022 reiterating the same grounds recorded in his previous order. 2.5 Aggrieved Appellant filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court Lucknow Bench. The Hon'ble Court directed the Appellant to take a course of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;िखित जबाब एबं उपलब्ध दस्तावेजों का ध्यान पूर्वक एवं विधिवत अवलोकन किया है। इस प्रकरण में निम्न बिन्दुओं पर अधिनिर्णयन किया जाना है कि क्या- 1. उपरोक्त अभिग्रहीत चांदी ग्रेन्यूल्स (Silver Granules) वजन 39.955 किग्रा. मूल्य Rs..27,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1;वारा कोई जबाब नहीं दिया गया और श्री बुध्दसागर यादब, अहीर ने उक्त सामान पर अपने स्वामित्व के लिए जो तर्क प्रस्तुत किए हैं, उनके आधार पर एक संतुलित निर्णय लेने का प्रयत्न करूंगा। मैं देखता हूं कि अधिकारियों न&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....306; नियमन) अधिनियम, 1992 की धारा 3 (3) एवं वाणिज्य मंत्रालय मारत सरकार द्वारा जारी बिदेश व्यापार नीति 2015-20 के प्रावधानों/ प्रतिबंधों का उल्लंघन करके नेपाल से भारत लाया गया, जो कि सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 111 (b) व (d) के अंतर्गत ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50;ै उपलब्ध दस्तावेजों के आधार पर यह पाता हूं कि उपरोक्त अभिग्रहीत चांदी भारतीय सीमा के अन्दर बरामद की गयी थी तथा बाद में उपरोक्त बरामद चांदी पर श्री बुद्धसागर यादव अहिर ने उपरोक्त पत्र के द्वारा स्वामित्व ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2348;ुद्ध सागर यादब अहीर का सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 123 के अंतर्गत दायित्व है। श्री बुध्दसागर यादव अहिर द्वारा उक्त अभिग्रहीत चांदी के स्वामित्व के संबंध में प्रस्तुत दस्तावेज उक्त चांदी के स्वामित्व को उ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....धित दावेदारी को पहले भी अस्वीकार किया जा चुका है। मैं उपरोक्त विवेचना के आधार पर यह पाता हूँ कि उक्त अभिग्राहित सामान सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 7(1)(C) के अंतर्गत जारी अधिसूचना सं. 63/94- सीमा शुल्क (एन. टी.) दिनांक 21.11.94 तथ&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concern" on the same grounds which have been already rejected by the proper order of the Appellate Authority made under Section 128 as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court cannot be held to be proper and is in contravention of the earlier order of the Appellate Authority. In para 3 of the impugned order following has been recorded: "03. The appellant vide their application dated 25.08.2021 claimed the ownership of the said seized goods and requested for its provisional release in their favour, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Customs (Prev.) Commissionerate, Lucknow vide order dated 07.01.2022 for failing to establish their ownership of the said seized goods. Subsequent to the issuance of show cause notice dated 27.01.2022 in the present case, the appellant vide their application dated 23.03.2022 again claimed the ownership of the said seized goods and requested for its provisional release in his favour, which was again rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Customs (Prev.) Commissionerate, Lucknow vide order dated 31.05.2022 reiterating the reason as mentioned in his previous order. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition before the Hon&#....