PARVEEN KR. SARAOGI AND RUSTAM ALI Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above -captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order -in -Appeal dated 18.9.1998 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order -in -original of the Addl. Commissioner who ordered the confiscation of the seized goods and the vehicle and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 75,000 on appellant No. 1 and of Rs. 20,000 on appellant No. 2.

(2.) THE facts of the case may briefly be stated as under - -On 6.12.1995, the DRI Officials intercepted truck bearing No. BHC -2586 when some bundles from that truck were being transferred to Maruti No. DL 3C 1336. Those bundles contained silk yarn of Chinese origin and also carried printed labels bearing description 'Blossoms While Steam Filature China National Silk Import and Export Corporation Made in China'. The present two appellants were also present at the spot at that time along with Shri Vijay Kumar Lilha and Shri Pramod Kumar, who are not appellants in this appeal. Their statements were recorded. They could not produce any document regarding the valid legal import or acquisition of the goods. The goods were seized through Panchnama which was attested by the witnesses. The appellant No. 1 in his statement, however, disclosed that the goods belonged to M/s Sangam Enterprises in which his wife was one of the partners and that these goods were purchased by that firm from M/s Prakash Overseas Ltd., Calcutta. He further disclosed that the goods were validly imported by M/s Prakash Overseas Ltd., Calcutta, who had sold the same. The appellant No. 2, claimed himself to be the driver of the truck, but showed his ignorance about the character of the goods. On completion of investigation, both these appellants along with other noticees (not appellants before us) were served with a show cause notice for the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties on them under various provisions of the Customs Act. After getting their reply wherein they controverted the allegations of having smuggled the seized goods into India, the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order, detailed above. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the said order -in -appeal through the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, that the seizure of the disputed goods at Lahartara, Varanasi, as disclosed by the DRI authorities, does not stand proved. Secondly, that the smuggled character of the goods also did not stand proved as the goods were not prohibited goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Rather the Goods being OGL, were freely tradable in the market for sale and purchase and as such no presumption about the smuggled character of the goods could be drawn under Section 123 of the Customs Act.