9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Confiscation of metal scraps on grounds of smuggling, burden of proof on Revenue, absence of foreign markings on the scraps, circumstantial evidence, claim petition filed after seizure.
Confiscation of Metal Scraps: The authorities below confiscated zinc and brass metal scraps, alleging smuggling, after intercepting a truck loaded with these scraps. The driver and his associate fled, leading to seizure by Customs Authorities. The appellant claimed joint ownership of the scraps, stating they were purchased for resale from pavement sellers. Proceedings resulted in the impugned Order confiscating the scraps and the vehicle, without imposing a penalty. Burden of Proof on Revenue: The consultant for the appellant argued that the Revenue failed to prove the scraps were smuggled, as they were non-notified items under the Customs Act, 1962. He contended that circumstantial evidence, like the absence of owners at interception, the driver fleeing, and delayed claim filing, did not establish smuggling. The appellant provided purchase receipts as evidence, which were not considered. The consultant cited tribunal decisions supporting the appellant's stance. Absence of Foreign Markings: The consultant highlighted the lack of foreign markings on the scraps, emphasizing that proving foreign origin is crucial to establish smuggling. The absence of such evidence, coupled with the non-notified status of the goods, weakened the Revenue's case. The Tribunal's precedent stated that fleeing of the driver upon interception did not prove knowledge of smuggling, similar to the delayed claim petition not indicating smuggling. Circumstantial Evidence: The Revenue reiterated the authorities' reasoning, but the Tribunal found no mention of foreign markings on the scraps. The appellant's production of cash receipts to verify purchase was disregarded without justification. The Tribunal cited a case where the driver fleeing did not prove knowledge of smuggling, aligning with the appellant's argument. Claim Petition Timing: The Tribunal emphasized that the delayed claim petition did not conclusively prove smuggling. The appellant's actions post-seizure, such as claiming ownership after seven days, did not establish the scraps as smuggled goods. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order, allowing the appeal and granting relief to the appellant.
|
