9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the confiscated scrap is of foreign origin and smuggled into India, burden of proof on Revenue, reliance on retracted statements, lack of evidence regarding lawful possession.
Summary: Issue 1: Evidence of foreign origin of the scrap The appellants contested that there was no evidence to prove the scrap in question was of foreign origin, as it was not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. They argued that initial statements were made under duress and subsequently retracted. The appellants also mentioned Anwar Hossain's involvement in scrap dealings and maintenance of a scrap register. Issue 2: Burden of proof on Revenue The Revenue claimed that the intercepted goods lacked legal documentation and the truck occupant admitted to the scrap being of Bangladesh origin. However, they failed to provide substantial evidence of lawful possession of the goods. Issue 3: Legal precedent and burden of proof The judgment highlighted that since the metal scrap was not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the onus was on the Revenue to prove the scrap was smuggled. It was noted that there was no marking on the scrap indicating Bangladesh origin. Referring to a previous case, it was emphasized that the Revenue must first prove foreign origin before establishing it as smuggled without duty payment. As the Revenue did not meet this burden, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed.
|
