2005 (9) TMI 408 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of watches due to lack of proof of legal import.
2. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Discrepancies in the narration of Panchnama and recovered watches.
4. Appellant's claim of watches being fake and locally procured.
5. Onus on the appellant to prove lawful import of watches.
6. Observations by the trial court regarding the fake watches.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal that upheld the confiscation of watches worth Rs. 5,31,875 due to the lack of proof regarding their legal import. The adjudicating authority had seized the watches as notified goods, and after redemption with a fine and imposition of a penalty, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the amounts upon appeal by the appellant.

2. The appellant contended that the watches were fake and locally procured for repair and resale. The trial court observed discrepancies between the Panchnama and the watches produced, noting watches without movement and variations in numbers and brand names. The court set aside the confiscation, agreeing with the appellant's claim that the watches were not of foreign origin but locally produced fake watches.

3. The Revenue argued that as notified goods, the onus was on the appellant to prove the lawful import of the watches, which the appellant failed to do by providing any documentation. The watches being below Rs. 300 each and the appellant's statement of local procurement for repair further supported the claim of fake watches.

4. The trial court's order highlighted the discrepancies in the watches produced and the Panchnama, leading to the conclusion that the confiscation of the fake watches was not sustainable. The court emphasized the legal position that as notified goods, the burden of proving legal import lay with the appellant, which was not met due to the nature of the watches and the observations made during the proceedings.

5. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation of the watches and emphasizing the appellant's claim of the watches being fake and locally procured for resale. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court on 20-9-2005, providing a detailed analysis of the case and the legal implications surrounding the confiscation of the watches.