2017 (3) TMI 1633 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Betel nuts - the Bill of entry would show the descriptions of the goods Betel Nuts . But the goods under seizure were split Betel Nuts - Held that - there is no dispute that the Betel Nuts is Non-Notified goods under the Act, 1962 and the appellant produced the documents - It is the duty of the Department to verify and enquire the smuggled nature of the goods. The only reason is that the imported Betel Nuts were splitted and therefore, the goods will be confiscated cannot be sustained - Both the authorities below have merely proceeded on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Seizure of Betel Nuts, Confiscation of Goods, Imposition of Penalty, Non-notified Goods, Verification of Documents

Seizure of Betel Nuts:
The Customs officers intercepted a truck carrying Betel Nuts and seized the goods based on a reasonable belief that they were smuggled. The driver produced a challan for fewer bags than found, leading to the seizure at Digharkhal.

Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:
A show cause notice proposed confiscation and penalties, resulting in the Adjudicating Authority confiscating the goods and imposing fines under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the decision, leading to the appellant's appeal.

Non-notified Goods and Verification of Documents:
The Betel Nuts were non-notified goods, imported by a specific importer who later sold them to the appellant. The appellant provided documents supporting the legal importation of the goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) raised concerns about the discrepancy in descriptions and the splitting of the Betel Nuts, leading to the rejection of the documents.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that the seized Betel Nuts were legally imported non-notified goods, supported by documents from the importer and the sale transaction. Despite the discrepancy in descriptions due to splitting and repackaging, the appellant explained the process of deterioration and replacement in Jute Bags. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the nature of the goods and the lack of investigation by the Department, relying on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.

Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal found the Department's actions lacking in verifying the legality of the imported Betel Nuts, solely focusing on the splitting without proper enquiry. As the goods were non-notified and the appellant provided valid documents, the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellant.