2012 (7) TMI 295 - AT - Customs

Illegal import into India in violating the provisions of Section 11 - lower authority on the basis of bills of entry dropped the proceedings for reason that the goods which were seized are those very which had been imported under the bills of entry - Held that - The seized goods were synthetic fabric, made wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn, there are goods which are covered by section 123 , the burden of proof is either on the claimant or on the person from whose possession the goods were seized, to show that the goods were not smuggled and that except for forwarding the bills of entry which are for import of viscose knitted fabrics no other evidence has been produced to rebut the presumption under section 123.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods based on suspicion of illegal importation.
2. Discrepancy between seized goods and Bills of Entry.
3. Applicability of Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Burden of proof on the claimant regarding smuggled goods.
5. Interpretation of seized goods as synthetic fabrics.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure of goods from a godown based on suspicion of illegal importation, with the officers finding rolls of synthetic fabrics. The owner of the godown submitted Bills of Entry related to the goods, which did not match the detained fabrics in terms of packaging and labeling. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a penalty proposal under Section 112.

2. The Appellant contested the seizure, arguing that the description of the seized goods as synthetic fabrics did not align with the description in the Bills of Entry, which mentioned knitted fabrics. The Revenue, however, maintained that the seized goods were indeed synthetic fabrics, as per the Seizure Report, and highlighted the discrepancy in descriptions.

3. The learned Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings, noting that the fabrics were not proven to be wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn and that the goods were not notified. The Revenue appealed, and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision, leading to the current Appeal challenging the impugned Order.

4. The crucial issue revolved around the burden of proof regarding the nature of the goods. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the burden lay on the Appellant to demonstrate that the goods were not smuggled, especially since the goods fell under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The absence of substantial evidence beyond the Bills of Entry contributed to the failure to rebut the presumption under Section 123.

5. The final judgment dismissed the Appeal, upholding the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the seized goods were indeed synthetic fabrics, made wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn, and subject to Section 123. The lack of contrary evidence presented by the Appellant reinforced the decision to dismiss the Appeal, affirming the applicability of the Customs Act provisions and the burden of proof in such cases.