2002 (8) TMI 528 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of ready-made garments of foreign origin at domestic air-cargo complex.
2. Allegations of smuggling against the appellant.
3. Confiscation and redemption of the seized garments.
4. Burden of proof in cases of seized goods.
5. Appellant's claim based on baggage receipts.
6. Legal principles regarding burden of proof in smuggling cases.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the seizure of ready-made garments of foreign origin at the domestic air-cargo complex of Indian Airlines. The consignment, including garments belonging to the appellant, was found with a fake address in Bombay, leading to its seizure by customs officers.

2. Allegations of smuggling were raised against the appellant based on the investigation. Statements from individuals like Shri Madhusudan Poddar and Shri Sanjay Gupta implicated the appellant in the illegal import of garments. The Commissioner released a major portion of the garments but confiscated a portion valued at Rs. 15,000, offering the appellant an option to redeem them on payment of a fine and duty.

3. The issue of confiscation and redemption of the seized garments was central to the case. The Commissioner's decision to confiscate a portion of the garments owned by the appellant was based on the evidence and statements provided during the investigation.

4. The judgment delves into the burden of proof in cases involving seized goods. It discusses how the burden shifts to the appellant if the Revenue presents evidence contradicting the appellant's claims. Legal precedents, such as the case of M/s. Kanungo & Co. v. CC, were cited to support the shift in burden of proof.

5. The appellant's defense relied on baggage receipts produced to support the licit import of the garments. However, the statements of individuals like Shri Poddar and Shri Gupta undermined the appellant's claims, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

6. Legal principles regarding the burden of proof in smuggling cases were extensively discussed. The judgment emphasized that when false evidence is presented, the burden of proof shifts to the appellant to prove otherwise. In this case, the appellant failed to refute the evidence presented by the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.