B. DAYALAL JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from OIA No. 292/2003 -Cus. dated 7 -2 -2003. The appellant had purchased branded Cigarettes of Bangladesh origin in Calcutta and had brought the same to Mysore by courier. The said goods were seized on the belief that the same are smuggled ones. The goods have been sold already by the Department for a value of Rs. 1,29,600/ -. The appellant is seeking the Mahazar value on the ground that the goods were non -notified ones and they can be freely imported. The second ground is that they are not smuggled goods and they were purchased from the local market in Calcutta.

(2.) THE learned Counsel submits that similar matters were decided by this bench in the case of Naveed Ahmed Khan v. CC, Bangalore - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 494 (Tri. -Bang.) and that of Syed Ibrahim and Others v. CC, Bangalore by Final Order No. 11 and 12/2005, dated 4 -1 -2005 - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 449 (T). He submits that in both these cases, the Tribunal examined the issue in great detail in the light of a large number of judgments and has held that non -notified goods cannot be confiscated absolutely. Furthermore, the burden to prove smuggling has to be discharged by Revenue. He submits that these goods were purchased from local market and, therefore, an inference has to be drawn that they are duty paid goods. He submits that in the cited judgments, the Tribunal ordered for re -assessment of the Mahazar value.

(3.) THE learned SDR submits that although in case of Naveed Ahmed Khan, there is no smuggling of the goods, yet the initial burden has been discharged by the Revenue in this case, inasmuch as the goods carried the brand of Bangladesh. Once the goods carry a foreign brand, then the burden shifts on to the customer and hence, the question of holding that they are not smuggled ones does not arise. He submits that the judgments cited by the Counsel are distinguishable.