2015 (12) TMI 1590 - AT - Customs

Whether pulses seized from a godown within two kms of the Indo-Nepal border were attempted to be exported to Nepal - Held that - It has also been observed by the first appellate authority that the factors of improper transactions in procuring of seized goods can best indicate some lacuna in the functioning of trading activity and cannot be termed as attempt to export - In the present appeal pulses are not specified goods under Chapter-IV of the Customs Act, 1962 to infer that bringing into specified area could be with an intention to export the same out of India - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against OIA No. 81/PAT/CUS/Appeal/2011 upheld by first appellate authority.
2. Allegation of attempting to export pulses seized near Indo-Nepal border.
3. Reliance on hearsay evidence by Revenue.
4. Validity of first appellate authority's decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against OIA No. 81/PAT/CUS/Appeal/2011, which was upheld by the first appellate authority, Commissioner (A) Patna. The first appellate authority supported the OIO No. 05-CUS/ADC/ERI/2010, where the adjudicating authority had dropped the proceedings against the appellant.

2. The Revenue argued that 41,123 kgs of pulses found in a godown near the Indo-Nepal border were intended for smuggling into Nepal. They mentioned that no one claimed ownership of the goods for five months and cited various pieces of evidence, including statements from villagers and a notification prohibiting pulse exports. However, the respondent's representative countered by stating that the appellant, allegedly involved in the smuggling, had passed away, and the Revenue's case relied solely on inadmissible hearsay evidence.

3. The main issue revolved around whether the seized pulses were indeed meant for export to Nepal. The Revenue's evidence included oral statements from villagers and a declaration by a resident of the village where the seizure occurred. However, the first appellate authority correctly noted that these were hearsay evidences and highlighted that irregularities in trading activities did not necessarily indicate an attempt to export. Moreover, pulses were not classified as specified goods for export under the Customs Act, further weakening the Revenue's case.

4. After considering both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found the first appellate authority's decision to be just, legal, and proper. They concluded that no intervention from the bench was necessary, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court, solidifying the decision in favor of the appellant.