9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of goods under Section 113B of the Customs Act on grounds of attempted smuggling to Bangladesh. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against an order confiscating plastic net rolls under Section 113B of the Customs Act, with a penalty imposed for an alleged attempt to smuggle goods to Bangladesh. The facts revealed that the goods were intercepted while being transported by an individual who claimed they were purchased locally and not intended for smuggling. The Revenue department, however, argued that the goods were meant for Bangladesh based on the statement of the individual transporting them. The key contention was the location of seizure, approximately 50 kilometers away from the Bangladesh border, raising doubts about the intended destination of the goods. The appellant argued that the goods were legally purchased, with supporting documentation, and seized far from the border, indicating no concrete evidence of smuggling. The Revenue's stance relied on the statement of the individual in possession of the goods, maintaining they were bound for Bangladesh. However, the lack of evidence linking the goods' movement to the border cast doubt on the confiscation's validity. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the statements and the absence of proof regarding the goods' intended destination, leading to the conclusion that the confiscation under Section 113B was unsustainable. In the judgment, it was emphasized that the goods' confiscation and the imposed penalties were based on the assumption of intended export to Bangladesh, without substantial evidence supporting this claim. The Tribunal found that the goods' seizure location, the lack of concrete proof connecting them to Bangladesh, and the appellant's assertion of legitimate purchase all contributed to the decision to set aside the confiscation and consequential penalty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, overturning the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant.
|
