(1.) The above -mentioned appeals have been directed against the common order in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority who directed the confiscation of the 10 gold biscuits under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed redemption fine for getting the same redeemed, as well as penalties as detailed therein on the appellants.
(2.) The learned Counsel has contended that no presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act that gold biscuits in dispute recovered from Sitaram, appellant on 17.1.98 were smuggled by him or any other appellants from a foreign country to India, as the recovery was effected by the police in the first instance during the course of checking of Bus in which Shri Sitaram was travelling in the area of Ghaziabad and which the police later on, handed over to the Customs officers on the following date i.e. 18.1.98. Therefore, the burden was on the Revenue to prove the smuggled nature of the gold biscuits but has failed to discharge this burden. He has also contended that the appellants have produced ample evidence on record, to prove the purchase of biscuits by Sitaram, appellant as employee on behalf of Shri Kamal Kumar appellant for valuable consideration from appellant Mangal Singh of M/s M.S. Chain who purchased the biscuits from M/s. M.D. Overseas, a Government of India recognized export house but the same has been wrongly ignored by the authorities below. The Counsel has also argued that even M/s M.D. Overseas had furnished proof of having purchased seized biscuits from M/s Globex India Ltd., another Export House who imported the biscuits and the same has been also overlooked without justification.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that at the time of arrest by the police along with gold biscuits, Sitaram appellant could not produce any valid document for possession of the same and that the documents produced later on has been rightly ignored.