9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(m) and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Duty liabilities on imported goods - Imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Burden of proof in relation to seized goods not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 Confiscation of Goods: The Commissioner of Customs had ordered the confiscation of various quantities of tin sheets, steel sheets, and coils under Sections 111(m) and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contested the confiscation, arguing that the burden of proof was on the Department to establish smuggling due to the goods not being notified under Section 123. The Commissioner's order did not address this crucial issue, leading to the appellants challenging the confiscation. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Department failed to provide positive evidence of smuggling for the non-notified goods. Relying on case law, the Tribunal concluded that confiscation based solely on the appellants' failure to prove lawful acquisition was unjustified. Consequently, the confiscation under Sections 111/119 was deemed unsustainable, and penalties and duty demands were set aside. Duty Liabilities on Imported Goods: The Commissioner had imposed duty liabilities on the imported goods seized from the appellants, specifying amounts for different categories of goods. The Tribunal noted that the duty liabilities were interconnected with the confiscation issue. Since the confiscation was deemed unsustainable due to lack of positive evidence of smuggling, the duty demands were also set aside. Additionally, the amount deposited by the appellants towards duty liabilities was to be adjusted accordingly. Imposition of Penalties: Penalties were imposed on M/s. Rukma Industries Ltd. and its Director under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, respectively. The Tribunal considered the penalties in conjunction with the confiscation issue. As the confiscation was found unjustified due to the lack of positive evidence of smuggling, the penalties were also set aside. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing smuggling through positive evidence, as highlighted in relevant case law. Burden of Proof for Non-Notified Goods: The main ground of contention in the appeals was the absence of notification under Section 123 for the seized goods. The appellants argued that the Department needed to provide positive evidence independently to prove smuggling. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that in the absence of such evidence, confiscation, penalties, and duty demands could not be upheld. By evading the core issue raised by the appellants, the Commissioner's order was deemed flawed. Relying on case law principles, the Tribunal concluded that the confiscation based solely on the appellants' failure to provide documentary evidence of lawful acquisition was against established legal standards. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were granted consequential reliefs.
|
