The revision filed by the appellant to the Central Government was also dismissed on August 28, 1953.
1,000 and directed the payment of import duty leviable on all the items together with other charges before the goods were taken out of customs companytrol.
Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition under Art.
In regard to items 1 to 5, it rejected the plea of the appellant mainly on the basis of a statement alleged to have been made by him at the time of seizure of the said articles.
On October 27, 1951, the appellant appeared before the Collector of Central Excise, who made an enquiry, and admitted before him that items 6 to 10 were smuggled goods from Pakistan, but in regard to the other items be reitera ted his plea that he originally brought them from Pakistan in the year 1947.
9,875/ Torches 23.
He made an order of companyfiscation of the said articles under s. 167 8 of the Sea Customs Act and s. 7 of the Land Customs Act but under s. 183 of the Sea Customs Act he gave him an option to redeem the companyfiscated goods within four months of the date of the order on payment of a sum of Rs.
The appellant is at present a resident of Barmer in the State of Rajasthan.
230/ Uncurrent silver companyns numbering 575.
In the result he held that all the goods were imported into India in companytravention of, i s. 3 of the Import Export Control Act read with ss.
The appellant in his reply stated that items to 5 supra were brought by him from Pakistan after the partition of the companyntry in 1947 and that items 6 to 10 were purchased by him bonafide for value in Barmer.
19 and 167 8 of the Sea Customs Act, ii ss.
Veda Vyasa, S. K. Kapur, K. K. Jain and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 3, 1954, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No.
The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated.
25,000.
Total 46,500/ On July 14, 1951 the Assistant Collector, Ajmer, gave numberice to the appellant to show cause and explain why the goods seized from him should number be companyfiscated under s. 167 8 of the Sea Customs Act and s. 7 of the Land Customs Act.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab but it was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court on November 3, 1954.
226 of the Constitution.
Hence this appeal.
4 pieces of silver bullion 114 tolas.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2600 tolas 5,200/ 2.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, H. R. Khanna and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
October 3.
153 of 1956.
4 and 5 of the Land Customs Act read with s. 7 thereof.
In addition he imposed a penalty of Rs.
22,193/ 4.
The Collector of Central Excise held that the appellant bad failed to establish that items 1 to 5 had been brought by him to India in the year 1947 and he also did number accept the plea of the appellant in regard to items 6 to 10 that he was a bonafide purchaser of them.
253 D of 1954.
865/ Gold bars.
On June 22, 1951, the Deputy Superintendent, Land Castoms Station, Barmer, companyducted a search of the appellants house and recovered therefrom the following ten articles Articles seized.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature of the State of Punjab dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Art.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue.
The Central Board of Revenue agreed with the Collector of Central Excise that the onus of proving the import of the goods in question was on the appellant.
9 pieces of gold bullion 201 tolas and 9 mashas.
49 tolas and 9 mashas 5,475/ 7.
29 Sovereigns 2,262/ King Ed.
255 Phials of liquid gold.
