M/s. Metalman Industries Ltd v. Union of India

search and seizure one Mr. Vijay Hardiya Excise Assistant was present on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, custody of seized material has handed over to him on Supurdginama. This was followed by a notice to show cause against confiscation of seized article U/s.111 r//w 118 of the Customs Act, 1962; and demand for payment of customs duty together with penalties.

#3. In the reply, appellant came out with case that seized goods were purchased by their Mumbai Unit from M/s. Sonal Garments (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai and the same were transferred from, Mumbai to their Pithampur Unit. Upon equinity, this story was disbelieved by the Dy. Commissioner who vide order dated 30th October 2009 directed confiscation of seized goods besides imposing statutory penalties and interest. An option was also given to the appellant to redeem the confiscated goods upon payment of redemption fine. Being aggrieved by the Order, appellant went up in appeal before {Commissioner) Appeals, which too has been dismissed by the order impugned. Hence this appeal.

#4. Learned counsel for appellant while assailing the order contended that authorities below failed to see and appreciate that goods in question were transferred from Mumbai to Pithampur for trading and all papers were in order. According to him Mr. Vijay Hardiya was not 3 aware of documents, therefore, his presence was of no avail and more over there was violation of principles of natural justice in as much as authorities below did not verify documents.

#5. After hearing learned counsel for appellant at length and going through record, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law. From the orders impugned it is clear that regardless of several opportunities, appellant could establish genuineness of claim that seized goods found in the factory premises of the appellant were for trade. We fail to see any connection between the products of the appellant and the cartons of POY. We feel that in the facts and circumstances of case in hand, authorities have rightly come to conclusion that cartons of POY were clandestinely removed in order to evade payment of duty. It is nothing but an after thought that Shri Vijay Hardiya was not aware of documents. Authorities upon due consideration of material has found against the appellant and we do not find any reason to upset the findings arrived at by them. In view of foregoing discussion appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.) (S.K.SETH, J.) Hk/-