9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Burden of proof to establish foreign origin of seized goods. 2. Relevance of expert opinion in determining the country of origin. 3. Discharge of burden by the appellant to prove goods were not of foreign origin. Analysis: Issue 1: Burden of proof to establish foreign origin of seized goods The appeal arose from an order where the Commissioner held that the Revenue failed to prove that the seized CFC gas was of foreign origin. The goods were seized from the respondent's godown, and the Revenue alleged that the goods were imported without a license. The importer presented purchase vouchers, but the Original Authority did not accept the statement. The Commissioner noted that no expert opinion or chemical analysis was obtained to establish the country of origin. The Revenue argued that since the goods were not available in the market and were imported items, the initial burden was on the respondents to prove the goods were not smuggled. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving the goods were of foreign origin. Issue 2: Relevance of expert opinion in determining the country of origin The Revenue contended that expert opinion was not necessary, citing a Madras High Court judgment on a smuggling case involving gold biscuits. The High Court had held that expert opinions are not always required for cases of this nature. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that in the present case, the investigation was inadequate, and expert opinion could have helped determine the origin of the goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the situation in the present case differed from the cited judgment as the goods in question did not bear foreign markings, necessitating further investigation to establish their origin. Issue 3: Discharge of burden by the appellant to prove goods were not of foreign origin The appellant argued that they had purchased the gas from the market and provided evidence that it was not of foreign origin. They contended that they had discharged their burden by proving the goods were not smuggled. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not intercepted during smuggling and were found in the respondent's godown. The Commissioner's finding that the investigation was inadequate and that the Revenue failed to prove the goods were of foreign origin was upheld. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the legality of the Commissioner's order. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the Revenue's failure to establish the foreign origin of the seized goods and the inadequacy of the investigation. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of expert opinion in cases where the origin of goods is in question and rejected the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the Commissioner's decision.
|
