9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the Collector of Central Excise confiscating goods and imposing a penalty. 2. Applicability of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act in determining licit origin of goods. 3. Merger of orders between original authority and appellate authority. 4. Burden of proof in cases of restricted goods possession. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise confiscating goods and imposing a penalty. The Customs authorities seized goods from the petitioner's premises, and after examining his accounts, released a portion but confiscated the rest. The Collector held that the petitioner failed to establish the licit origin of the remaining goods, leading to the confiscation and penalty. The petitioner's appeal to the Central Board of Revenue was rejected for non-compliance with statutory conditions. 2. The Collector justified the confiscation under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, pertaining to prohibited or restricted goods. However, the court noted that the onus of proving the offense under this section lies with the Collector, not the possessor of goods. The court cited a previous case where it was held that mere disbelief by the Collector is not sufficient to establish illicit importation, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence. The court ruled that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioner, leading to the decision to allow the petition. 3. Addressing the contention of merger between the original and appellate authority's orders, the court clarified that the rejection of the appeal petition does not constitute a disposal on merit. Since the appeal was not entertained due to non-compliance, the order of the original authority stands, and the theory of merger does not apply in this case. 4. The court emphasized that in cases involving restricted goods, the Customs authorities cannot presume illicit importation solely based on the possessor's failure to prove licit origin. It was highlighted that the Collector must establish all elements of the offense under Section 167(8) and cannot shift the burden of proof to the possessor. The court concluded that the order of confiscation and penalty imposition could not be upheld due to the incorrect placement of the burden of proof on the petitioner, leading to the allowance of the petition without costs.
|
