Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2010 (6) TMI AT This
Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized foreign origin goods under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Rejection of bills produced by the appellant after seizure. 3. Consideration of goods as actually of foreign origin. 4. Imposition of penalty on the appellant. Analysis: 1. The case involved the confiscation of foreign origin goods seized from the business premises of M/s. Gopal Stores, Ahmedabad valued at Rs. 2,37,460 under the Customs Act, 1962. The proprietor admitted the goods were of foreign origin but failed to produce valid purchase documents. The seized goods included items like wrist watches and electronic calculators. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. 2. The appellant later produced bills from a Customs notified shop, M/s. Satyam Selection, after a gap of three weeks from the seizure date. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the bills, stating the shop ceased to exist before 1996. The appellant's advocate argued that investigations should have been conducted at the seller's end and claimed the goods were not originally branded, suggesting they were indigenously manufactured under foreign brand names. 3. The judge criticized the authorities for rejecting the bills hastily without investigating the supplier, M/s. Satyam Selection. The judge noted that the goods' value in the invoices was lower, indicating they might not be genuinely of foreign origin. It was emphasized that establishing the goods' smuggled character required proof of actual foreign origin. The judge highlighted the presence of fake goods in the market under foreign brand names, warranting the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 4. Ultimately, the judge set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant, granting relief based on the lack of evidence proving the goods' actual foreign origin. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing the foreign character of seized goods before confiscation, ensuring the appellant received the benefit of doubt in this case.
|