2003 (6) TMI 344 - AT - Customs

Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing - Condonation of - Confiscation - Absolute confiscation of the goods - Smuggled goods

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Confiscation of goods on the grounds of being smuggled.
3. Verification of documents related to the importation of goods.
4. Burden of proof on Revenue to establish smuggling.
5. Acceptance of documents as genuine evidence.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing illiteracy, poverty, and family illness as reasons for the delay. The Revenue opposed the application, noting the delay exceeded three months from the date of the impugned order. Despite the appellant's absence, the Tribunal considered the case on merits, acknowledging a good case and the genuine reasons for the delay. The Tribunal, after reviewing the circumstances, condoned the delay and proceeded with the final disposal of the appeal.

2. The Commissioner of Customs had confiscated 100 cartons of Wai Wai Noodles, alleging they were of smuggled origin. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had a strong case on merits. Considering the appellant's circumstances, including illiteracy and family health issues, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and proceed with the appeal for final disposal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential reliefs to the appellant.

3. The appellant presented various documents, including sale bills, bill of entry, and a certificate of country origin, to support the legality of the imported goods. The Revenue questioned the authenticity of the documents, particularly the existence of a trading firm and the chain of importation. Despite discrepancies highlighted by the Revenue, the Tribunal found the bill of entry for the Noodles to be genuine, supported by verification reports. The Tribunal emphasized the Revenue's failure to provide positive evidence of smuggling, ultimately leading to the decision to allow the appeal and provide relief to the appellant.

4. The Tribunal noted that the Noodles were non-notified items under the Customs Act, placing the burden on the Revenue to prove illegal smuggling. While the Revenue raised concerns about the legitimacy of the documents and the chain of importation, the Tribunal stressed the lack of substantial evidence establishing the goods as smuggled. The Tribunal considered the genuine documents provided by the appellant, such as the bill of entry, as sufficient proof of legal importation, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and grant relief to the appellant.

5. Despite challenges raised by the Revenue regarding the authenticity of the documents and the chain of importation, the Tribunal found the appellant's evidence to be credible and supported by verification reports. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of concrete evidence from the Revenue establishing the smuggled nature of the goods. Considering the circumstances and the lack of substantial proof provided by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and provided consequential reliefs to the appellant, ultimately disposing of the Stay petition as well.