2009 (3) TMI 631 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - redemption fine and penalty was imposed - When that possession is transferred by virtue of the provisions contained in S.180 to the Customs authorities there is no fresh seizure under the Customs Act accused lost possession of the goods when the police took custody of it so there is no fresh seizure under the Customs Act. There is no question of law much less any substantial question arises for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Hence the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of confiscation, penalty, and redemption relief in the absence of legal material showing authority to import contraband or payment of customs duty?
- Whether the goods seized by the police and handed over to Customs exempt the accused from burden of proof under the Customs Act?

Analysis:
1. Issue 1 - Confiscation and Redemption Relief:
The case involved the seizure of electronics goods of foreign origin by police, which were then handed over to Customs for further action. The respondent claimed to have purchased the goods from a third party but failed to provide any legal documentation. The Commissioner initially imposed penalties and ordered confiscation, which was later set aside partially on appeal. The Tribunal further reduced the penalty, leading to the current appeal. The High Court observed that the goods were freely available in the market and non-notified, and the onus was on the authority to prove smuggling. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that when goods are seized by the police, possession transfers to the authorities, exempting the accused from the burden of proof under the Customs Act. Therefore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

2. Issue 2 - Burden of Proof under Customs Act:
The key argument revolved around whether the goods being seized by the police and then handed over to Customs exempted the accused from proving the legal import or payment of customs duty. The Tribunal accepted the contention that since the goods were seized by the police and then transferred to Customs, the burden of proof did not apply. The High Court concurred with this interpretation, stating that the accused lost possession of the goods upon police seizure, negating the need for a fresh seizure under the Customs Act. By referencing legal precedent and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs.

In conclusion, the High Court, through a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedents, affirmed the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order of confiscation, penalty, and redemption relief. The Court clarified the transfer of possession from the accused to the authorities upon police seizure, exempting the accused from the burden of proof under the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal principles in determining the outcome of cases involving contraband goods and upheld the decision in favor of the respondent based on established legal interpretations.