9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of the origin of seized goods and imposition of penalties based on evidence presented.
Summary: The case involved five appeals by the department arising from a common order regarding the seizure of parcels containing copper and aluminium scrap. The goods were seized on suspicion that they originated from Nepal and were mixed with indigenous scrap. The respondents claimed to have procured the goods from different suppliers, but the department argued that one of the suppliers had been closed in 2000. The original authority ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties on the respondents. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later held that there was no evidence proving the goods were of foreign origin or smuggled, and therefore allowed the appeals. Upon hearing the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the burden to prove the goods were of foreign origin and smuggled lay mainly on the Department, as the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The respondents provided tax invoices to support their claims, and one supplier's closure was explained through an affidavit. The Tribunal observed that no investigation was conducted regarding the other supplier. The evidence presented by the Department was deemed insufficient to prove the foreign origin of the goods, leading to the decision that confiscation and penalties were not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeals by the Department.
|
