2004 (10) TMI 433 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the seized goods were notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
2. Whether the goods were smuggled.
3. Whether the Tribunal ruling in the case of Ravi Mittal v. CC applies.
4. Whether the Revenue's appeal regarding the confiscation and penalty is valid.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal found that the seized goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The Revenue argued that specific items were notified, such as Electronic Calculators and Digital Diaries functioning as Calculators, and should have led to confiscation and penalties. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument.

2. The Tribunal also determined that the goods were not smuggled ones and that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof in this regard. The Revenue did not challenge this finding in the ROM application. The judge emphasized that for a mistake to be considered for re-hearing, it must be an apparent error on record, such as an arithmetical mistake, as established in the case of Dinakar Khindria v. CC, New Delhi.

3. The Tribunal applied the ratio of the Tribunal ruling in the case of Ravi Mittal v. CC, where it was held that the seized goods were not smuggled and not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The judge noted that the Revenue's grounds for the ROM did not address the findings related to the goods not being smuggled, indicating that there was no basis for recalling the order for re-hearing.

4. The Revenue's appeal primarily focused on the confiscation and penalty aspects. However, since the grounds taken up were against the merit of the order and not based on any apparent errors, the judge concluded that there was no merit in the ROM application and rejected it. The judge advised the Revenue to file an appeal against the order if they disagreed with the Tribunal's decision on the confiscation and penalties.

Overall, the judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the seized goods not being notified under the Customs Act, not being smuggled, and the Revenue failing to discharge its burden of proof. The ROM application by the Revenue was dismissed due to lack of merit in challenging the order on these grounds.