2008 (7) TMI 693 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Foreign goods - smuggling - Held that - Merely absence of MRP stickers on the packages without any other cogent evidence cannot be lead to a conclusion that goods are smuggled in nature. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable hence set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of pen cells and button cells on the ground of smuggling.
2. Compliance with Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
3. Burden of proof in cases of non-notified goods suspected to be smuggled.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against an order confiscating pen cells and button cells, alleging they were smuggled into India. The appellant provided evidence of lawful import through invoices from importers. Customs confiscated packages without MRP stickers, citing non-compliance with import regulations. The appellant argued that absence of MRP stickers post-customs clearance doesn't imply unlawful import.

2. The Revenue contended that imported package commodities must bear importer details, net quantity, manufacturing year, and MRP. As the goods lacked MRP stickers, they were rightfully confiscated. However, the appellant emphasized lawful purchase and import, challenging the confiscation based solely on missing MRP stickers post-customs clearance.

3. The case revolved around proving the alleged smuggling of non-notified goods. The appellant presented Bill of Entries to demonstrate legal import, shifting the burden to Revenue to prove smuggling. Citing precedent, the Tribunal highlighted that absence of MRP stickers alone isn't sufficient evidence of smuggling. The impugned order was set aside as the confiscated goods were lawfully imported, and missing MRP stickers post-customs clearance didn't establish smuggling. The appeal was allowed based on lack of substantial evidence supporting the confiscation.