2009 (6) TMI 742 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the seized goods are of smuggled nature.
2. Whether the onus lies with the Revenue to establish the goods are smuggled.
3. Applicability of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Customs officers seized goods from the office-cum-godown of the appellant, valued at Rs. 10,62,450/-, on the belief that they were of smuggled nature. The proprietor admitted in his statement that the goods were smuggled from Nepal. The Tribunal found that the appellant consciously affirmed the possession of smuggled goods, establishing that the goods were indeed smuggled. The Tribunal held that the Revenue successfully proved the smuggled nature of the goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, leading to the confiscation of the goods.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that the onus lies with the Revenue to establish the goods are of smuggled nature. The appellant contended that there was no conclusive evidence to prove the goods were smuggled. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's admission in the statement, along with the retraction and subsequent re-admission, constituted sufficient proof of the goods being smuggled. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's own admission was crucial in establishing the nature of the goods, irrespective of the lack of additional evidence.

Issue 3:
Regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal differentiated the present case from the decision in Radha Kishan Bhatia v. UOI. The Tribunal clarified that the penalty in the current case was imposed under Section 112, which pertains to individuals concerned with goods liable for confiscation under Section 111. While acknowledging the excessive penalty and redemption fine, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the seized goods but reduced the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty provisions under Section 112 were applicable in this case, and the amount was adjusted accordingly based on the circumstances.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the seized goods, established the smuggled nature of the goods based on the appellant's admission, clarified the onus of proof in such cases, and adjusted the penalty and redemption fine under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.