9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Revenue appeal against setting aside of adjudication order by Commissioner (Appeals). Analysis: The case involved the respondent, engaged in the business of electronic items, who had imported goods of foreign origin without paying duty. Customs officers visited the respondent's shop and seized Digital Video Recording Cameras and Digital Still Cameras. The respondent admitted in statements that the goods were smuggled without duty payment. The original authority confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine, and confirmed a duty demand along with a penalty on the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order. The Revenue contended that the respondent's admission of the goods being smuggled and purchased without duty payment was sufficient to discharge the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the adjudication order based on the failure to prove the nature of the goods. The respondent's advocate, however, relied on a Tribunal case precedent stating that a statement alone is not conclusive evidence and must be corroborated with other evidence to prove the facts in issue. The burden of proof, especially for non-notified goods, lies with the Revenue and requires substantial evidence. Upon review, the judge found that the respondent had admitted to the smuggled nature of the goods without retraction. The judge noted that the respondent did not contest the show cause notice or attend the hearing before the original authority. Considering these facts, the judge concluded that the admission by the respondent, who dealt with foreign goods, was sufficient evidence. The judge referenced the precedent that the authenticity of a statement should be evaluated based on the circumstances of each case. Therefore, the judge ruled that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly held that the Revenue failed to meet the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judge upheld the original authority's order but agreed that the redemption fine and penalty were excessive. Considering the respondent's role as a trader, the judge reduced the redemption fine and penalty amounts. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed with the revised fine and penalty amounts.
|
