ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants are an export house and were in possession of number of import and export passbooks enabling them to import raw materials and consumables for production of goods which would be exported. Three consignments of such raw materials imported by the appellants were seized. One consignment was in the docks pending clearance and the other two consignments were stored by the importers in warehouse after clearance. These goods were stored in the importers’ name. Investigations showed that the importers had disposed of certain goods imported in like manner to other persons or through one Shri M.D. Palaria which sales were not in terms of the conditions of the import. The importers waived issue of a written show cause notice and appeared for personal hearing. Before the Commissioner it was claimed that the imports were in accordance with the Policy. While admitting that earlier goods were sold to Mr. M.D. Palaria it was claimed that the goods under seizure would be sold only to actual users as required by the Policy. The Commissioner, however, remarked that there was a “general agreement between Choudhary International and Palaria” whereby the goods would be disposed of through Palaria. The Commissioner further remarked that such agreements were oral. He did not accept the statement of the importer that the present goods would
be sold to actual users remarking that the agreement between the importers and Palaria was a running account and not for specific purpose. He further observed “in this view of the matter, I may safely say that but for the intervention of the Customs the goods would have been sold.” On this logic he confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, this appeal.
2. On hearing both sides we find that for this provision to be attracted what has to be shown is that the goods are imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by the Customs Act or any other Act. The import was in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Acts. No contravention has been established. In any case any order of confiscation passed on mere suspicion or on an estimate of the behaviour of the importer at a later date cannot sustain.
3. This appeal stands allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.