2007 (3) TMI 39 - AT - Customs

Demand and Penalty Alleged that appellant were involve in the confiscation of seized goods and accordingly demand of duty and penalty were made After considering the evidence of appellant, allow the appeal with consequential relief by the learned JDR

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of Chinese calculators from appellant's business premises.
2. Lack of complete information on invoices leading to proceedings against the appellant.
3. Confiscation of goods, duty demand, and penalty imposition.
4. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the seizure of Chinese calculators from the appellant's business premises following a search. The appellant, a trader, purchased the calculators from two other shops and produced invoices to support the transactions. Statements from the suppliers confirmed the sales. The authorities found the number of calculators in the premises matched those in the invoices. However, the invoices lacked crucial details like brand, model number, and country of origin, raising suspicions.

2. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confiscation of goods, duty demand, and penalty imposition. The Assistant Commissioner's order confiscated the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. The appellant was also directed to pay customs duty and a personal penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

3. During the appeal, it was noted that Chinese calculators are regulated goods under the Customs Act, placing the burden on the appellant to prove legal importation. The suppliers provided invoices from a Jaipur party showing legitimate import, but these were not accepted due to missing information. The documents submitted did not convince the authorities of the goods' legal importation, leading to the penalty and confiscation.

4. The judgment highlighted discrepancies in the authorities' assessment, noting that the Revenue could have conducted further investigations or examined the Jaipur party instead of outright rejection. The lack of detailed information in the invoices did not conclusively prove smuggling. The judge extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, overturning the impugned order and providing relief. The judgment emphasized the need for thorough investigations and fair treatment in such cases to prevent unjust penalties.