9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of appellants to 18000 pieces of Philips Triacs seized under suspicion of smuggling - Discrepancy in quantity between seized goods and invoice - Alleged false claim by appellant company - Burden of proof on Revenue to establish smuggling. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the claim of the appellants to 18000 pieces of Philips Triacs seized under suspicion of being smuggled into the country. The Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim based on discrepancies between the quantity of seized goods and the quantity mentioned in the appellants' invoice, as well as the alleged false claim made by M/s. Conjap Electronic Industries. The adjudicating authority found that the quantity discrepancy and contradictory statements by the owner of M/s. Ghelabhai & Co. pointed towards a fabricated claim by the appellants. The Tribunal analyzed the burden of proof in cases involving non-notified goods suspected of being smuggled. It noted that the Revenue must establish that the goods were indeed smuggled into India. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to discharge this burden, especially considering the lack of direct dealings between the owner of M/s. Ghelabhai & Co. and the appellants. The Tribunal highlighted that the dealings were through a third party, Lalitbhai of Chennai, with whom the owner of Ghelabhai had interacted. As the Department did not prove the smuggling, the confiscation of the goods was deemed unsustainable, leading to the decision to set aside the confiscation order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order related to the confiscation of the Philips Triacs and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants. The judgment emphasizes the importance of meeting the burden of proof in cases of suspected smuggling and the need for clear evidence to support confiscation orders.
|
