ABDUL MANNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. I find that the facts of the case have been narrated in the impugned order -in -appeal and I also find that the lower appellate Authority has duly considered the grounds advanced by the Appellants before him.

(2.) SHRI N.K. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants states that the impugned goods were being carried from Islampur to Matiary for local sale and he states that since the Department has not proved the foreign origin of the goods, the seizure and confiscation as well as penal action are not justified. He further states that in any case the impugned goods are not of a nature requiring absolute confiscation. He says no reasons have been given by the Authorities below for not ordering release of the impugned goods on redemption fine. He also cites decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B., Calcutta v. Raj Kumar Jaiswal - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 561 (Cal.).

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made from both the sides I find that the cited case law deals with the case where the Department was not able to prove the foreign origin of the goods and even not disclosed the name of the foreign country where the goods were manufactured.