9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Customs seizure of goods for lack of proper documentation and legal importation, burden of proof on the respondent to show valid acquisition of goods, validity of baggage receipts in relation to seized goods, imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods. Analysis: 1. The Customs Officers conducted a search at a shop premises and seized crockeries and glassware of foreign origin due to the partner's inability to produce documents proving legal importation. The respondent's statement revealed purchases from various individuals without proper documentation. Show cause notices were issued, leading to absolute confiscation of goods and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the decision, citing clearance under Baggage Rules and payment of customs duty. This led to the appeal by the Revenue. 2. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties. The respondent later produced 18 baggage receipts to support the importation of seized goods. However, discrepancies arose as some receipts were post-seizure, and individuals named in others denied importing goods themselves, indicating misuse of their passports. The Tribunal found a lack of correlation between the seized goods and the baggage receipts. The burden of proof shifted to the respondent, who failed to demonstrate valid acquisition, leading to the reversal of the confiscation order and imposition of fines. 3. The Tribunal highlighted the errors in the lower Appellate Authority's decision, emphasizing the failure to establish the legitimacy of the seized goods through the provided baggage receipts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation order, allowing redemption upon payment of a fine and imposing a penalty on the respondent. The appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of meeting the burden of proof in cases involving seized goods of foreign origin.
|
