Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 2(s),16,156(1)(8),156(1)8),157(1),157(2)

Law: Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950

Section: 3(1)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 2(s), 16, 156(1), Cls. (8) & (9), 157(1) & 157 (2)--Imports and Exports Control Act (XXXIX of 1950), S. 3(1)--SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06-06-2005--Smuggling, charge of--Report of physical examination of the goods, non-submitting of--Allegation was that on physical examination of goods (Bitumen grade 60/70 of Iranian origin 217 drums) the same differed from quality--Adjudication Officer ordered outright confiscation of goods and an option was given to the owner of vehicle to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine, and penalty was also imposed on the owner of vehicle--Appellant assailed order-in- original on the ground that the impugned goods were easily and readily available in the local market and the same were purchased by them from a wholesaler--Validity--Record revealed that though the Goods Declaration (GD) possessed by the appellants was produced before the Customs Department but the genuineness of the GD was not challenged by the Department--Contention of the Department was that, on physical examination, goods-in-question differed from quality, however in order to corroborate the same, no such examination report had been brought on record before the Customs Appellate Tribunal-- Whereas the appellants produced a commercial invoice and a Challan issued by MCC Hyderabad-Import showing bona fide import and purchase of impugned goods--Therefore, appellants had shifted initial burden of proof upon the shoulders of respondent / department-- Hence, it could not be considered that seized goods were smuggled ones--Moreover, it was found that appellants were not importers rather they had made the purchases from the local market, therefore, the Department had failed to justify any smuggling in said regard-- Furthermore, it was also noted that the seized goods were recovered from an area which was more than five miles away from the border-- In the present matter, the appellants had proved their case to the hilt that the goods were neither smuggled nor there was any discrepancy in the GD furnished by them nor there was any violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969--Thus, in wake of charge of smuggling having not…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492