9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods - re-chargeable Table Lamps and re-chargeable Search Lights. 2. Assessment of goods by Revenue. 3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 4. Origin of the goods - Japanese or smuggled. Analysis: 1. The Appellant filed an Appeal against an order confiscating re-chargeable Table Lamps and re-chargeable Search Lights valued at Rs. 1,13,500 by the Revenue. The goods were to be released on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000, which was reduced to Rs. 4,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant contended that the goods were freely available in the market, purchased from Mumbai, and not notified or restricted under the Customs Act. They provided bills to support the lawful purchase, denying any evidence of smuggling. 2. The Revenue argued that the goods had a paper sticker and embossing indicating "major component made in Japan," suggesting Japanese origin. However, the Appellant failed to produce any documentation regarding the lawful import of the goods, leading to the assertion that the goods were liable for confiscation. 3. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not classified as notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, shifting the onus to the Revenue to prove smuggling. Despite the Japanese origin indication, no concrete evidence or admission by the Appellant suggested smuggling. As a result, the Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's argument, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the Appeal. This judgment highlights the importance of establishing the origin and legality of goods in customs cases, emphasizing the burden of proof on the Revenue in confiscation matters where goods are not classified as restricted or notified. The decision underscores the necessity of concrete evidence to support allegations of smuggling, ensuring fair treatment and due process in customs enforcement.
|
