ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. All the six appeals are being disposed of together as they arise out of the same impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has absolutely confiscated different quantities of sugar, masurdal and rice collectively valued at Rs. 56,700.00 (Rupees fifty-six thousand seven hundred) under the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the finding that the same were meant for illegal export to Bangladesh.
2. As per facts on record, the BSF Officers on 18-7-98 recovered 4,200 Kgs. of Sugar, 700 Kgs. of rice and 350 Kgs. of masurdal from a place which is two kilometres away from the Indo-Bangladesh Border. The said seizure was made, according to the BSF Officers, as unclaimed. The goods were subsequently handed over to the Customs who seized the same on the reasonable belief that the same were meant for exportation to Bangladesh. After a gap of about 2/3 days, the appellants claimed the ownership of the part of the goods in question and also produced documents showing purchase of the sugar and masurdal from the wholesale dealer and submitted that the goods were loaded on the van rickshaws for transportation of the same to the shops which were operating from that area and for which they were duly licensed. It was their contention that BSF personnel intercepted the van rickshaws and took possession of the goods which were covered by cashmemos, road challans and trade licences.
3. On the above facts, proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the goods in question, which resulted in passing of the impugned Orders by the authorities below.
4. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the appellants submits that an enquiry was conducted by the Officer-in-Charge for verification of the appellants’ claims and a report was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, vide his letter dated 4-12-98. He draws attention to the said report and submits that the same is in favour of the appellants and it has been clearly brought out in the said report that the appellants’ contention that the goods were intercepted by the BSF Officers when the same were being transported in van rickshaws, is duly substantiated by the statements of various local persons who were witnesses in the said drama. All the appellants were having their licensed shops in the area and even the sellers of the goods had admitted having sold the same to the appellants for further retail sale from their shops. Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant, for the appellants submits that the said report though placed before the Commissioner (Appeals), has not been considered by him.
5. I have also heard Shri T.K. Kar, learned SDR, for the Revenue.
6. In the present case, various grocery items have been seized originally by the BSF Officers on the ground of attempt to export to Bangladesh. The BSF Officers have observed that the place of seizure was within an area of two kilometres away from the Indo-Bangladesh Border and the goods were seized as unclaimed. No exact place of seizure has been mentioned by the BSF Officers. The Customs Officer who has investigated the claims of the appellants, has observed that he has visited the place of seizure as mentioned by the BSF’s Seizure Memo and as stated by the claimants. He has reported that he visited the places as stated by the respective claimants in the Claim Petitions, where the people stated the facts in favour of the claimants and the statement of the van rickshawalla was also recorded, from which it transpires that BSF Officers have taken away the goods of the claimants from their possession by influence of their official position; that the respective claimants showed their respective valid licences and valid purchase documents. He has also reported that the local Pradhan of Jalangi Gram Panchayat and the Secretary of Jalangi Bazar Byabsayee Samiti in their statements recorded during the course of investigation of the related seizure cases, have stated that all the claimants are permanent residents of the locality and have their respective licensed businesses at Jalangi Bazar and they are honest businessmen and personally known to the Pradhan and the Secretary. The purchase documents were also verified by the investigating authority and were found to be correct. He also observed that BSF Officers did not mention the particular name of the place from where the goods in question were seized. On calculation, it appears that the measured place of interception mentioned by the BSF Officers, is in the middle of the river, Padma. It is neither the end of the landward of Indian Territory nor any territorial area. He has also observed in his report that it is hardly possible to draw any comments that the claimants had any intention to export the goods from India to Bangladesh, illicitly, so recovered by the BSF Officers on 18-7-98.
7. The above report of the Officer-in-Charge of the Jalangi Customs, submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, reflects upon the fact that how the BSF Officers are making out the cases in that area for attempted export to Bangladesh. I have dealt with a number of identical cases in the past and has held that there were no evidence for showing any such attempt made on the part of the owners. The above detailed report of the Jalangi Customs has clarified the situation prevailing in that area and the hollow cases being made out by the BSF Officers. The Officers have shown that the goods have been seized from a place which is at a distance of two kilometres from Indo-Bangladesh Border. However, the report shows that such a place would lie in the middle of the river, Padma. This fact by itself, is sufficient to hold that the seizure was, in fact, not made from the place from where it has been shown by the BSF Officers. The report as regards the exact place of seizure is also very detailed showing that the BSF Officers have seized the goods when the same were being transported in van rickshaws to the appellants’ shops. It has also not been disputed that the appellants have their licensed shops in that area and the goods were purchased by them under regular bills for further retail sales from their shops. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have taken note of the fact as disclosed in the above report of the Customs Officer instead of sidelining and ignoring the same. It is seen that there is no evidence on record to show that the said goods were being attempted to be exported to Bangladesh. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeals of the appellants with consequential relief to them.