2007 (2) TMI 34 - AT - Customs

Confiscation Revenue alleged that respondent were smuggled the mobile phones Revenue unable to provide any evidence in support of it Authority after considering facts and circumstances dismissed the revenue appeal.

Summary

Issues involved:
Seizure of mobile phones by authorities, lack of documents for possession, confiscation of foreign origin mobile phones, non-production of licit acquisition documents, legality of confiscation, relevance of Board's circular, distinguishability of judgments on prohibited goods, involvement in smuggling activity.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi pertains to two appeals filed by the Revenue against an order-in-appeal that set aside the original order and allowed the appeal of the Respondent. The central issue revolved around the seizure of mobile phones by authorities from both respondents, with the department contending the inability of the respondents to produce documents for the illicit possession of these phones. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) provided a detailed finding stating that the confiscation of foreign origin mobile phones lacked conclusive evidence of smuggling activity by the respondents. The Commissioner highlighted that the goods were non-notified and freely importable under Open General Licence, making the confiscation legally unsustainable.

In the first case, the Adjudicating Authority confiscated mobile phones due to non-production of documents showing licit acquisition. The Commissioner found that the department failed to prove the smuggled nature of the goods, citing relevant case laws and the Board's circular to set aside the confiscation order. In the second case, the Adjudicating Authority confiscated foreign origin mobile phones based on unreliable supplier information. However, the Commissioner, applying precedents and the Board's circular, deemed the confiscation legally unsustainable due to the freely importable nature of the goods.

The judgment emphasized the importance of conclusive evidence in establishing smuggling activity and highlighted the distinction between confiscation of freely importable goods and prohibited items. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the correctness of setting aside the original order in the absence of conclusive proof of smuggling activity by the respondents.

Overall, the judgment underscores the necessity of fulfilling the burden of proof in confiscation cases involving non-notified goods and the relevance of legal principles and circulars in determining the legality of such actions.