2002 (12) TMI 417 - AT - Customs

Summary

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 the case.
4. Commissioner's decision on confiscation, redemption, and penalty imposition.
5. Appeal against the Commissioner's decision and request for a fresh adjudication.

Analysis:

1. The customs officers seized various goods of foreign origin from Sure and Sure Boutique, suspecting them to be smuggled. Statements of individuals involved, including Parbat Patel, Narsi Devji Patel, and suppliers, were recorded during the investigation. The Commissioner proposed confiscation of goods and penalties under relevant sections based on the suspicion of unauthorized imports.

2. The individuals involved contended that a significant portion of the seized goods were of Indian origin and legally purchased. They argued that the evidence provided, including bills, vouchers, and bank statements, supported their claim. However, the Commissioner found the charges established, disregarding the retractions made by Parbat Patel and Narsi Patel, citing legal precedent.

3. During the appeal, it was argued that the Commissioner did not adequately consider the evidence provided in response to the show cause notice. Affidavits from suppliers, confirming the sale of goods, and payment details through cheques were presented. The contention was that the goods were misrepresented as foreign origin due to local markings, and the burden of proof lay with the appellant.

4. The appellate tribunal acknowledged the rebuttable presumption regarding goods bearing foreign markings. However, it noted that the Commissioner did not sufficiently address the evidence presented, including affidavits and bank statements. The tribunal emphasized the need for a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner, considering all evidence and submissions.

5. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The Commissioner was directed to conduct a thorough review, provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case, and make a decision in accordance with the law. The tribunal emphasized the need for an expeditious resolution of the matter, as the goods remained in the custody of the department.