2013 (12) TMI 1458 - AT - Customs

Seizure of goods - Non production of bills - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed findings while allowing the appeal. He has observed that as per version of the appellant, he purchased the said goods from Chennai and the packages came from Chennai is not in doubt. Being the recipient of goods, the ownership of the said goods rest with the respondent. It is findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods are not notified under Section 123 and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Revenue officials to prove beyond doubt that the goods procured were smuggled one. It is thus not necessary for the appellant to produce copies of bills of entry under which goods were imported in India. Commissioner (Appeals) observed it is the submission of the applicant that he purchased the impugned goods from Chennai and this fact is not disputed. Department also could not prove that the said goods were smuggled. Accordingly I do not find any inconformity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeal) regarding the confiscation of camera and camera parts of foreign origin.
2. Determination of ownership and licit acquisition of goods.
3. Burden of proof on Revenue to establish goods as smuggled.
4. Applicability of Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeal) regarding the confiscation of camera and camera parts of foreign origin. The goods were detained and later seized as no bills could be produced by the owners. The respondent claimed to have purchased the goods from Chennai and denied any involvement in smuggling activities. The lower authorities confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, which was later appealed by the respondent.

2. The determination of ownership and licit acquisition of goods was crucial in this case. The respondent claimed to have purchased the goods from Chennai in the local market, and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found that the ownership of the goods rested with the respondent. It was observed that the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, shifting the burden to the Revenue to prove that the goods were smuggled.

3. The burden of proof was a significant issue, with the ld. Advocate for the respondent arguing that since the goods were purchased from Chennai in the local market, the provisions of Section 111(b) and (d) were not applicable. The Revenue needed to establish beyond doubt that the goods were smuggled, especially in the absence of genuine documents showing licit acquisition and import of the goods.

4. The applicability of Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was debated, with the ld. Advocate for the respondent emphasizing that the goods were not notified under Section 123. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the Revenue failed to prove that the goods were smuggled, considering the respondent's claim of purchasing the goods from Chennai. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, rejecting Revenue's appeal based on the lack of evidence supporting illegal importation.