9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962 and penalty imposed on the appellant. Analysis: The appellant contested the confiscation of 5 bales of taffeta cloth and the penalty imposed, arguing that the goods were legally acquired. The appellant presented evidence of purchase against a bill and cheque payment, asserting that the burden of proof regarding the goods' foreign origin rested with the Department. The appellant also arranged for an affidavit from the seller confirming the transaction as a regular business deal. The appellant cited relevant legal decisions to support the argument that the penalty imposed was excessive. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant admitted to the recovery of the goods of foreign origin from his premises, emphasizing the burden of proof under the Customs Act and the EXIM Policy. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to prove the goods were not smuggled, and thus, the confiscation and penalty were justified. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, case laws cited, and records, noted that the appellant admitted to the recovery of the cloth in question and did not contest the seizure. The burden of proving the goods were not smuggled lay with the appellant, as the person from whom the goods were seized or claimed to be the owner. Both lower authorities had found in favor of upholding the confiscation and penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there were no grounds for interference in the lower authorities' orders based on the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
|
