2011 (5) TMI 144 - HC - Customs

Appeal u/s 130 - Confiscation and penalty - the evidence collected from the Transport Company also had shown that the goods were booked in the name of the respondent - the Respondent has discharged the burden of proving that the goods seized are not smuggled goods and that they purchased those from their seller who lawfully acquired ownership of those goods - in this case the test reports of the seized goods substantially tally with the descriptions of those indicated in the invoices produced before the Customs authority - Accordingly the appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in law by not considering the Test Report submitted before it.
- Dispute regarding the ownership and import status of fabrics seized from a godown in Kolkata.
- Burden of proof on Revenue to show that the fabrics were smuggled to India.
- Analysis of the test reports and invoices to determine the authenticity and ownership of the seized goods.
- Customs Authority's failure to provide exact thickness of seized goods leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, where the Commissioner of Customs challenged the order of the Tribunal that set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on fabrics seized from a godown in Kolkata. The main issue raised was whether the Tribunal erred by not considering the Test Report submitted before it. The respondent, M/s. Heera Sales Corporation, claimed ownership of the fabrics and disputed the Revenue's assertion that the goods were smuggled into India.

The Commissioner of Customs contended that the fabrics were notified items under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the burden of proof on the Revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the fabrics were not prohibited goods and the burden of proof to show smuggling was not met by the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent proved ownership through invoices and consignment notes, leading to the release of the goods.

In analyzing the test reports and invoices, discrepancies in thickness measurements were noted. The test reports provided average thickness, while the invoices showed specific thickness values. The Court found that the Customs Authority's vague reports, lacking exact thickness details, did not justify confiscation based on minor variations. The Court emphasized the need for precise information from the Customs Authority to support confiscation orders.

Ultimately, the Court held that the respondent had proven the goods were not smuggled and lawfully acquired. Despite disagreement on the burden of proof, the Court ruled in favor of the respondent due to the Customs Authority's failure to discredit the invoices' authenticity. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of accurate documentation and thorough investigation in customs cases to establish ownership and import legitimacy. The Court's decision underscores the significance of clear and precise evidence in determining the lawfulness of seized goods and upholding or overturning confiscation orders.