PRADIP DAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LD . Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the first appellate order suffers from following two infirmities : -

(2.) SHRI Arijit Chakraborty, ld. Advocate submitted that a fact which is always a fact on record shall not be construed otherwise in absence of contrary evidence. The distance which was material for decision by ld. Authority below does not call for discarding the same since that is relevant and material fact which the authority ought to have gone into. It was always on record. Particular extent of distance from a particular point is a matter of record and Notifications under Customs law. That was not liable to be ignored at any stage when that has a bearing to the case. But the ld. Appellate authority whose power is co -terminus and extensive denied justice holding that the issue of distance was raised for first time before him and not tenable.

(3.) SECONDLY , his argument is that when the goods were not notified goods, it is always the complainant who should bring every material to discharge onus of proof. Revenue being the complainant, there is nothing on record to suggest point of origin and destination of the goods, carrier of the goods if any which made the goods to make, chain of evidence involved in the import if any and ultimate seller and buyer of goods, when all such aspects go to the root of the matter. In absence of all such ingredients, the appellant should not be dealt prejudicially under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962. The order imposing burden on the appellant is therefore unsustainable.