2004 (11) TMI 447 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order directing confiscation of gold biscuits under Customs Act, burden of proof on Revenue, evidence produced by appellants, legality of purchase, imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against a common order-in-appeal affirming the confiscation of 10 gold biscuits under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposition of penalties. The Counsel argued that the burden was on the Revenue to prove the smuggled nature of the gold biscuits but failed to do so. The appellants provided evidence to show the legitimate purchase of the biscuits from a recognized export house, which was ignored by the authorities. The Counsel contended that the seized biscuits were not smuggled goods and highlighted the chain of purchase transactions to support their claim.

The learned JDR reiterated the correctness of the impugned order, emphasizing that Sitaram could not produce valid possession documents at the time of arrest. However, upon review, it was found that Sitaram, an employee of a trader, was caught with the gold biscuits during a police check on a bus. The Customs authorities failed to prove the smuggled nature of the goods as per legal precedents. Documentary evidence presented by the appellants, including bills, ledger entries, and stock registers, demonstrated the lawful purchase of the biscuits. The Customs department even verified these facts during legal proceedings, supporting the appellants' claims.

The seized gold biscuits were shown to have been legally acquired and possessed by the appellants through a documented purchase process from recognized entities. The chain of transactions and payment of customs duty further established the legitimacy of the purchase. Consequently, the goods could not be deemed as smuggled under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order entirely, allowing the appeals of the appellants with consequential relief as per the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting the burden of proof in cases involving confiscated goods and the significance of documentary evidence in establishing the legality of transactions.