Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)Commissioner Of Customs (Import) vs Shri Gangaram P. Kerkar on 12 September, 2003
In case of Tayyab Junus Khatri v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev,), Mumbai (2002 (139)-ELT-0433), Chandrakant U. Shah V CC (2000 (123) ELT 730), and Jatin Mehtra V CC (2000(120) ELT 108). Tribunal has held that although the strong ground for suspicion notwithstanding, suspicion could not take place of conviction.
Commissioner Of Customs (P) vs Shri Dinesh Raysoni And Shri Ambalal B. ... on 17 December, 2004
(vi) The Department has also filed a Reference Application bearing No. 17 of 2002 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court against CEGAT Order No. C-I/3559-66/WZB/2001 dated 8.11.2001 in the case of Shri Tayyab Yunus Khatri and Ors. v. Commissioner (Prev.) and relied upon by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in his O-in-A No. 48/2002 BP dated 17.05.2002 wherein the Department has raised the following question of law amongst others as to 'whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Department has discharged burden of proof cast upon it in respect of the non-notified goods? If so, whether Tribunal was correct in setting aside the confiscation and penalty?'. The said Reference Application is still pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
Vijay Bajaj vs Commissioner Of Customs on 17 July, 2003
2. Appellant challenges the above order on the ground that it is neither sustainable in law nor in the facts of the case. It is being submitted that Clocks in question were eligible for restricted import and that the appellant had purchased the goods on the day previous to their seizure from one Mr. Uday Mr. Shah owner of M/s. EMSON Engineering Enterprises. An invoice bearing Sl. No. 120, dated 3-2-99 has also been relied on. It is the submission of the appellant that his statement dated 4-2-99, wherein he stated that the Clocks were purchased from different persons without bill or invoice, had been extracted from him, as the goods, in fact were purchased from M/s. EMSON Engineering Enterprises. Reference has been made in this connection to the appellant's telegram dated 5-2-99 to the Commissioner, complaining FUDA Alarm Clocks had been seized by preventive officers and "valid duty paid documents produced but not taken on records". The learned Counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that in respect of imported goods, retail dealers could not be expected to produce proof of their legal import or payment of duty. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Tayyab Junus Khatri and Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 433 (T) - 2002 (48) RLT 992 (CEGAT - Mum.) in support of his submission. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that the lower authorities were not justified in rejecting the explanation about proper purchase of the Clocks based on a statement of Shri Shah that goods were actually sold only on 5-2-99 and that sale invoice date was shown as 3-2-99 only at the request of Shri Bajaj. His contention is that the relevant fact is that Shri Shah had admitted that he had imported the goods and had given particulars of the import and had stated that the goods had been sold by him to Shri Bajaj. His statement that goods were sold only on 5-2-99 was incorrect.
1