2009 (10) TMI 688 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against confiscation of consignments, ownership claim disallowed, penalty imposed.

Confiscation of consignments: The appellant's consignments were confiscated by the Commissioner of Customs on the grounds of being smuggled into India. The appellant argued that the goods, PVC quoted fabric, were not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue to show that the goods were indeed smuggled. The appellant provided evidence through invoices and consignment notes to prove the legitimate purchase of the goods, which were verified by the Revenue. The inventory made at the time of seizure also confirmed the availability of consignment notes, contradicting the Revenue's claim that they were not produced by the transporter. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof, leading to the confiscation being deemed unsustainable and the appellant's ownership claim being wrongly rejected.

Discrepancy in evidence: The Revenue contended that the transporter produced the consignment note only after a summons was issued, and pointed out a discrepancy in the thickness of the imported goods as per the bills of entry compared to the goods in question. However, the Tribunal noted that the PVC quoted fabric in question was not prohibited goods and that the Revenue did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the goods were smuggled. The appellant's evidence, including verified invoices and consignment notes, along with the inventory made at the time of seizure, supported their claim of ownership and legitimacy of the goods. As a result, the impugned order of confiscation and penalty imposition were set aside, and the appellant was granted consequential relief in accordance with the law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, overturning the decision to confiscate the consignments, disallow the ownership claim, and impose a penalty. The appellant successfully demonstrated the legality of the goods through verified documentation and the Revenue's failure to prove smuggling, leading to the favorable outcome in the appeal.