9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by customs officers on suspicion of being smuggled. 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Act and penalty imposition under Section 112. 3. Discrepancies in statements of individuals involved in supplying goods. 4. Failure of the Commissioner to consider evidence and affidavits provided by the appellant. 5. Rebutting the presumption of foreign origin of goods bearing foreign markings. Analysis: 1. The customs officers seized ready-made garments, leather goods, and accessories of foreign origin from two shops in Mumbai suspected of smuggling. Statements of individuals involved in the shops indicated discrepancies in claims regarding the origin of goods and their suppliers, leading to a notice proposing confiscation and penalties under relevant sections of the Act. 2. The Commissioner, upon review, found the charges established and ordered the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 20.52 lakhs, with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. Penalties were imposed on the proprietors. The appellant contended that a significant portion of the goods were of Indian origin, supported by evidence of legal purchase and payment through cheques. 3. During the appeal, it was argued that individuals initially denying supplying the goods later affirmed the transactions, attributing their previous statements to fear of customs officers. Affidavits and bank statements were presented to support these claims. The appellant emphasized that goods with foreign markings could still be of Indian origin, shifting the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise. 4. The Tribunal acknowledged the rebuttable presumption of foreign origin for goods with foreign markings but criticized the Commissioner for not considering crucial evidence, including affidavits and bank records supporting the appellant's assertions. The lack of thorough examination necessitated a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner to fully assess the evidence and submissions provided. 5. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the previous order was set aside. The Commissioner was directed to reevaluate the case, considering all evidence and submissions, to make a lawful decision. The expeditious resolution of the matter was emphasized, especially regarding the custody of the goods under dispute.
|
