1993 (10) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tterjee submitted that the goods (readymade garments) not being notified (under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962) the onus of proving that the same were smuggled lay on the Department; that, therefore, observation of the learned Collector in the penultimate para of his order that the burden lay on the party to prove that the goods had not been smuggled was against settled law; that just because seizure was made under a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled into India the burden of proof did not shift on the party when the goods were not notified. Similarly, it was argued by the learned consultant, whereas show cause notice merely mentioned of a good number of garments bearing labels of foreign origin (as per evidence annexed to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... same goes into the possession of a purchaser, who is at liberty to resell the same. 5. A number of orders in respect of old and used garments passed by the Board in their appellate jurisdiction and by others were also relied upon viz. Order-in-Appeal No. 1691-A, dated 27-9-1980 of the Board who released similar goods observing that the availability of such goods as rags through regular import channel is well-known and the fact of auction also established the channel through which such goods get diverted to the market. Similarly in order No. 216, dated 23-6-1980, while releasing old garments the Board overruled the conclusion of the Additional Collector in view of appellant's contention that the goods seized were neither notified under C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs Act and nor of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 are available to the Department. The applicant also produced evidence of purchase of goods from M/s. G.L. Sarkar, who confirmed the sale, albeit unable to explain every endorsement. Nevertheless the Department's case seems to be rather weak. Even the Board in their order-in-appeal set aside the imposition of penalty which shows an inherent weakness of conviction in Department's case. The conclusion of the Board that as the goods were from near the Border with Bangladesh and some of the goods were with foreign labels provide basis for conclusion that they were brought from Bangladesh is without substance. Such presumptive conclusion cannot be drawn particularly in respect of a m....