IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVILJURISDICTI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVILJURISDICTI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVILJURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2007 CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2007 CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai .. Appellant Mumbai .. Appellant Mumbai .. Appellant Versus Versus Versus Foto Centre Trading Co .. Respondent Foto Centre Trading Co .. Respondent Foto Centre Trading Co .. Respondent ---- ---- ---- Mr.A.S.Rao for the Appellant Mr.A.S.Rao for the Appellant Mr.A.S.Rao for the Appellant Mr.Manoj Sanklecha for Respondent Mr.Manoj Sanklecha for Respondent Mr.Manoj Sanklecha for Respondent ---- ---- ---- CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND R.S.MOHITE, JJ R.S.MOHITE, JJ R.S.MOHITE, JJ DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2007 DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2007 DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2007 PC PC PC 1. The goods in question admittedly are cameras 1. The goods in question admittedly are cameras 1. The goods in question admittedly are cameras with zoom lens and flashes. They admittedly are with zoom lens and flashes. They admittedly are with zoom lens and flashes. They admittedly are non-notified goods. The law as now settled in such non-notified goods. The law as now settled in such non-notified goods. The law as now settled in such matters in respect of non-notified goods is that the matters in respect of non-notified goods is that the matters in respect of non-notified goods is that the burden is on the revenue to establish that these are burden is on the revenue to establish that these are burden is on the revenue to establish that these are smuggled goods. In the appeal memo itself under smuggled goods. In the appeal memo itself under smuggled goods. In the appeal memo itself under ground no. (i) the revenue has referred to a ground no. (i) the revenue has referred to a ground no. (i) the revenue has referred to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Customs Appeal No.11 of 2006 decided on 8th March, Customs Appeal No.11 of 2006 decided on 8th March, Customs Appeal No.11 of 2006 decided on 8th March, 2006 in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs M/s 2006 in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs M/s 2006 in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs M/s Aakash Enterprises where the issue of burden of Aakash Enterprises where the issue of burden of Aakash Enterprises where the issue of burden of proof was an issue. The S.L.P. preferred has proof was an issue. The S.L.P. preferred has proof was an issue. The S.L.P. preferred has subsequently been dismissed by an order of the subsequently been dismissed by an order of the subsequently been dismissed by an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10th July, 2007. Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10th July, 2007. Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10th July, 2007. : 2 : : 2 : : 2 : 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel submits that the confessional statement were submits that the confessional statement were submits that the confessional statement were retracted after a period of about 4 months and in retracted after a period of about 4 months and in retracted after a period of about 4 months and in these circumstances it was open to the adjudicating these circumstances it was open to the adjudicating these circumstances it was open to the adjudicating authority to have considered the statements as authority to have considered the statements as authority to have considered the statements as retracted. Even if we held that the retracted retracted. Even if we held that the retracted retracted. Even if we held that the retracted statements could be considered the law again as statements could be considered the law again as statements could be considered the law again as settled is that there must be other corroborative settled is that there must be other corroborative settled is that there must be other corroborative evidence. In the instant case, counsel for the evidence. In the instant case, counsel for the evidence. In the instant case, counsel for the revenue fairly admits that there is no other revenue fairly admits that there is no other revenue fairly admits that there is no other corroborative evidence. corroborative evidence. corroborative evidence. 3. Considering the above in our opinion,these 3. Considering the above in our opinion,these 3. Considering the above in our opinion,these been purely findings of fact no questions of law been purely findings of fact no questions of law been purely findings of fact no questions of law wouldarise, consequently, appeal stands dismissed. wouldarise, consequently, appeal stands dismissed. wouldarise, consequently, appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs. (F.I.Rebello,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite, J) (R.S.Mohite, J) (R.S.Mohite, J)