2007 (4) TMI 101 - AT - Customs

Confiscation (Customs) - Alleged that appellant holding that goods were not covered by the proper documents and accordingly seized it - Held that that the allegation was correct and sustained

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods claimed to be of Nepalese origin not in the course of import to India.
2. Alleged violation of law by the appellant and another individual.
3. Burden of proof on the appellant to establish legal import of goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant argued that the seized goods of Nepalese origin were not in the course of import to India but were seized after duly imported goods were in India. The appellant claimed that the seizure was a colorable exercise and that the burden of proof was discharged, citing relevant legal decisions. The appellant contended that no evidence of illegal import was found, and the driver was not interrogated. The appellant sought to set aside the appellate order upholding the adjudication.

Issue 2:
The JDR submitted that there was evidence of a violation of law by the appellant and another individual, Shri Bhagwan Prasad. The JDR highlighted that the appellant's appeal was dismissed previously, and the first appeal order was upheld. It was mentioned that the appellant chose a convenient mode to seek redressal independently.

Issue 3:
Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was found that the appellant, along with Bhagwan Prasad, claimed the goods and the vehicle before the authorities. The revenue pointed out that the driver was absconded during interception, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant to establish legal import beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant failed to explain the whereabouts of the goods after import and could not establish a link between the imported goods and those found in the truck. The absence of credible evidence, coupled with the absconding driver, went against the appellant. The first appellate order was sustained as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the findings of the appellate authority.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the first appellate order was upheld.