Page 149 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) v. RAJESH PAWAR 683

30. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges under Section 40(2) of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section 51(1A) of the said Act.
31. The petitioner is on bail, he shall therefore be discharged from the
bail bonds.
32. As such CRR 3523 of 2010 is allowed.
33. Department is directed to communicate this order to both the
Courts below and the LCR be sent back to the Ld. Courts below.
34. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
________

2020 (372) E.L.T. 683 (Cal.)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sanjib Banerjee and Kausik Chanda, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)
Versus
RAJESH PAWAR
A.P.O. No. 146 of 2018, G.A. No. 3882 of 2014 and W.P. No. 209 of 2003,
decided on 13-2-2020
1
Confiscation - 11 gold biscuits seized from assessee - Burden on as-
sessee to how he obtained such goods - Adverse inference to be drawn on fail-
ure to discharge the burden - 1283g of gold recovered from assessee not at-
tributable to 1166g of gold that had been purchased by him - No explanation as
to how he came to be in possession of the gold that was found on his person -
Failure by assessee to discharge his burden - Order passed by adjudicating
authority and order passed by Tribunal cannot be faulted - When findings of
fact rendered by competent bodies having jurisdiction to enquire into such
facts to be scarcely interfered with in exercise of the power of judicial review
unless they appear to be perverse on the face of it - Single Bench picked stray
line from order of Tribunal to find it to be without basis - Not evident imme-
diately as to whether the import or export of gold was prohibited in the year
1994, contention that since import or export of gold not prohibited at time of
seizure, adjudicating authority ought to have given assessee option in terms of
Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be permitted to be canvassed at this
stage - Order of Tribunal restored with costs on assessee - Sections 111 and 125
of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Advocate, for the Ap-
pellant.
S/Shri Sagar Bandopadhyay and Arijit Chakrabarti,
Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The Court : The appeal of the department is directed against a
rather terse order of August 19, 2014 [2014 (309) E.L.T. 600 (Cal.)] by which the
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2014 (309) E.L.T. 600 (Cal.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  149