2010 (11) TMI 826 - HC - Customs

Confiscation and penalty - smuggled goods - defence of the appellant was that he had legally purchased the goods and was not responsible for the alleged smuggling of these goods. However, he could not give the name of the person from whom the goods were allegedly purchased - seized goods carried the name of country Malaysia with year of manufacturing 2000 whereas the baggage receipts were of the year 1998-99 and from this fact it is concluded that the said receipts did not relate to the seized goods - contention of the appellant qua Section 123 of the Customs Act, No question of law arises, appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods by Customs Authority
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant
3. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner Appeals and Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
4. Allegations of smuggling against the appellant
5. Defence of legally purchasing the goods
6. Failure to provide details of the seller
7. Discrepancy in the year of manufacturing and baggage receipts
8. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act

Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The case involved the confiscation of certain imported goods in the custody of the appellant by the Customs Authority. The goods were seized on the grounds of being smuggled goods, leading to their confiscation and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the appellant.

Dismissal of Appeals:
The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner Appeals and the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed. The appellant claimed to have legally purchased the goods and denied responsibility for any alleged smuggling. However, the appellant failed to provide the name of the seller or submit an affidavit to prove the purchase. Additionally, a discrepancy was noted between the manufacturing year of the seized goods and the year on the baggage receipts, indicating a lack of connection.

Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act:
The appellant argued that Section 123 of the Customs Act was not applicable to the case, but this contention was rejected. The authorities concluded that the appellant's defence was not substantiated, and the facts of the case were properly considered. The courts upheld the contention of the appellant regarding Section 123, stating that no question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the confiscation of the imported goods, the imposition of the penalty, and the dismissal of the appellant's appeals due to the lack of evidence supporting the claim of legally purchasing the goods. The discrepancy in the manufacturing year and baggage receipts further weakened the appellant's case. The court found that Section 123 of the Customs Act was applicable, and the authorities had properly evaluated the facts of the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.