Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Md. Bellal Hossain vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), ... on 23 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(146)ELT192(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.96 B.S.F. Personnels recovered 531 pieces of cotton and silk sarees from head-loads near B.P. No. 78/9.5 and subsequently the same were handed over to the customer, who seized the same as unclaimed on the reasonable belief that the same were meant for illegal attemp for export to Bangladesh.
2. On 3.1.97 the appellant claimed the ownership of the seized goods stating that on 23.12.96, while he was bringing the said 531 sarees for his shop by horse-driven cart the B.S.F. Personnels recovered the goods. A complaint was lodged to that effect with the police on 28.12.96. He also enclosed statement of the horse cart puller in support of his claim. He also made a statement before the Customs Authorities on 17.4.97 stating that the seized goods were not meant for illegal export to bangladesh. Along with his claim of ownership of the goods, he produced cash memos showing purchase of the sarees. Enquiries were conducted with the seller of the sarees, who could not produce the duplicate copy of the cash memos. The other shop was found closed.
3. On the above basis the appellants was issued a Show-Cause Notice for confiscation of the goods and for imposition of penalty upon him. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs concluded that the cash memos submitted by the appellant cannot be accepted as relevant valid document for the seized sarees and the appellant cannot be accepted to be the owner of the goods. Accordingly, by holding that since the place of seizure was near to the Border he confiscated the sarees for attemp to illegal exportation to Bangladesh. he also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) upon the appellant. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. I have heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhaya, learned Consultant for the appellant and Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR for the Revenue. The appellant's claim as regards the ownership of the sarees has been rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the claim was submitted to the Customs after a gap of 7 days and the complaint was made to the police after a gap of 4 days. Secondly, the Authorities below have observed that cash memo produced could not be verified and the authenticity of the same was not proved for want of duplicate cash memo in question. I do not find any force in both the above reasoning of the Commissioners. Late filing of the ownership claim, by itself, cannot be considered to be a ground showing that sarees were meant for exportation. Similarly the enquiries conducted by the Revenue as regards purchase of the sarees has not resulted in any negative report inasmuch as one of the shop was found to be closed and no enquiries could be conducted and the second shop, there is not statement of the owner showing that the sarees have not been sold by him. Merely because the duplicate copy of the cash memo was not found in the shop premises of the said seller of the sarees cannot lead to any adverse conclusion against the appellant. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
5. (Pronounced in Court)