RAVINDER KHURANA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GEN.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order -in -appeal dated 23 -7 -2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has affirmed the order -in -original of the Addl. Commissioner who ordered the confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 35,000/ - and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 30,000/ - under Section 112(b) of the Act.

(2.) THE facts are not much in dispute. On 24 -9 -1999, raid was conducted at the business premises of Hans Studio at Safdarjung Enclave. On conducting search, Misc. electronic goods of foreign origin, detailed in the Panchnama, vide which those goods were seized, were recovered, as the appellant could not produce any document showing the lawful acquisition of the same. Show cause notice for the confiscation of the goods and for imposition of the penalty was issued to the appellants. The appellant, however, contested the show cause notice by alleging that the goods are freely available in the market and he has purchased the same. He also avered that some goods were imported by him under two bills of entries, but the adjudicating authority did not accept his plea and ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty on him. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order.

(3.) I have heard both sides. There is no tangible evidence on the record to show that the seized goods, as detailed in the Panchnama, were smuggled one. These goods, at the relevant time, i.e. at the time of seizure, were not prohibited goods under Section 123 or under any provision of Chapter 4(a) of the Customs Act. Therefore, no presumption about the smuggled nature of the goods could be drawn on the simple ground that the goods carried foreign marking. Initial burden was on the Department to prove that the goods were smuggled one. But not an iota of evidence has been produced to discharge this burden.