DARSHAN SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant raised grievance that the goods in question being non -notified and the impugned ball bearings not disclosing the name of the Country, the appellant was not liable to be dealt as a smuggler under the law. It was also grievance of the appellant that the Department failing to trace the source of the goods, the impugned order is unsustainable in view of superfluous evaluation of the evidence.

(2.) THE ld. SDR appearing for Revenue submitted that the truck carrying the impugned goods being smuggled and the ball bearing not being proved by the appellant to be an Indian origin and the Pencil Cell batteries having been sealed in the false chamber in the truck, carrying such goods, the authority had rightly passed the orders not only confiscating the goods but also imposing the penalty. Therefore the appellate order which was passed granting reasonable opportunity of hearing does not call for interference.

(3.) HEARD both sides and perused the record. The descriptive order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) satisfies the requirement of a speaking order bringing out that the seizure of the goods was done at the place of interception without any proof of Indian origin and without any evidence of proper import into the country. The confessional statement recorded was a good piece of evidence and those were properly used against the appellant. The Appellants plea that the confessional statement was retracted was of no consequence. The appellant has also failed to bring evidence about the country of origin of the goods and its proper import. Therefore, Revenues reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kewal Krishan v. State of Punjab -1993 (67) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) holding that the onus is on the appellant to prove that the goods were not the smuggled goods cannot be ignored. Therefore, the appellant having failed to discharge the burden of proof and acting contrary to the requirement of Notification No. 9/96 -CUS., dated 22 -1 -1996 does not deserve any consideration. In view of appellants failure to bring material to discard reasonable belief of the appellant it was bound to be imputed to charges under the Customs law which was approved by the ld. Authority. Accordingly, the first appellate order does not call for interference and the appeal is dismissed.