2010 (8) TMI 353 - HC - Customs

Smuggled goods Burden of proof Electronic goods seized from premises of respondent - goods are not of smuggled character and available in the market in plenty - mere possession of the goods by anyone else cannot be said to have been brought by clandestine import which calls for action under the Customs Act - procurement of the goods seized were made by the respondent but the failure to explain source the procurement cannot be attributed to be a clandestine procurement or nor can assume the character of smuggled goods - burden of the revenue to prove that the goods were smuggled one for which action was called for, and when such burden was not discharged by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Burden of proof on the department to prove goods were smuggled
2. Intervention by the court on the basis of evidence appreciation

Analysis:

Issue 1: Burden of proof on the department to prove goods were smuggled
The case involved the seizure of electronic goods by customs authorities from a business place, suspected to be imported illegally. The initial authority held the goods liable for confiscation, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the goods were not of a smuggled character and were available in the market legally. The revenue contended that the burden of proof should be on the respondent to explain the source of procurement, especially for foreign goods. However, the Tribunal found that the revenue failed to prove the goods were smuggled, shifting the burden back to them. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and legal principles, concluding that the revenue did not discharge its burden of proving smuggling, thus the burden did not shift to the respondent.

Issue 2: Intervention by the court on the basis of evidence appreciation
The revenue argued that the Tribunal wrongly shifted the burden of proof and misinterpreted the law. They cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions to support their position. However, the Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the revenue to establish goods as smuggled, which they failed to do in this case. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings that the goods were not smuggled and were lawfully imported. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the revenue did not meet the required burden of proof. The Court dismissed the appeal, highlighting the consistency of the Tribunal's decision with legal precedents and rejecting the need for further discussion on the matter.

In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the revenue's failure to prove the goods were smuggled and the lawful availability of the goods in the market. The Court clarified the burden of proof in such cases and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's findings.