2013 (4) TMI 442 - AT - Customs

Smuggling of goods from Nepal through Rail - DR submits that since the goods were of Chinese origin these goods qualified as third country origin goods and it is not necessary for revenue to produce the export documents from China to Nepal - seizure of goods - The appellant submits that these goods were legally imported at Nhava Sheva Port vide Bill of entry and after the import these goods were transferred to their unit in Assam & later on it was decided that goods should be shifted to their another unit at Haridwar through a Courier - Held that - Available records do not establish any identifiable co-relation between the seized goods and goods imported vide Bill of entry dated 30.12.2009. Commissioner (appeal) has also observed that since the addresses given for the consigne and consignee were found fake, the import of goods through documents submited by appellant becomes doubtful. More over consignor and consignee were genuine persons, there should not have been any problem in serving the letters on them either on given address or through M/s Bom Gim Couriers & Logistic Ltd. M/s Bom Gim Courier & Logistic Ltd. in their letter dated. 01.07.2010 certified that both consinore & consignee were their agents in Tinsukia and Delhi but later vide their letter dated 2802.2011, they informed that Shri Ram Babu Sharma & Md. Allauddin were not on their employment. In such circumstances contention to treat the consignment legally imported is not acceptable. No infirmity in finding of Commissioner (Appeal) that seized goods are different from good mentioned in B/E submitted at Nhava Sheva Port. Contravention of notification 9/96 - Held that - When the goods of Chinese origin come from Nepal, there is no need to prove that goods were exported from China to Nepal. Regarding the point proving the goods imported from Nepal, goods were dispatched from Tinsukia Railway station Assam and that place is bordering Nepal and when the goods are clandestinely bought into the country, there will not be any legal document showing import from the Nepal. Thus the goods are of the Chinese origin and being dispatched from Tinsukia Railway station Assam, Department is able to prove that goods come to India in violation of the Notification 9/96. Against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods based on suspicion of smuggling.
2. Claim by the appellant regarding legal importation of goods.
3. Contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus.
4. Dispute over the origin and importation route of the goods.
5. Reliance on a previous tribunal decision.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the seizure of goods suspected to be smuggled from Nepal, leading to a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation and penalties. The appellant, M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the goods were legally imported through proper channels and documented transfers from Nhava Sheva Port to their units in Assam and Haridwar. They contended that the Department failed to prove contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus, citing the lack of evidence linking the seized goods to the legally imported consignment.

3. The Department maintained that the goods, being of Chinese origin, were considered third country goods, and the burden of proof did not require export documents from China to Nepal. They argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the appeal based on this premise.

4. The tribunal found that the seized goods, although of Chinese origin, lacked a clear connection to the legally imported consignment. The addresses provided for the consignor and consignee were found to be fake, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the importation documents. The tribunal concluded that the Department successfully demonstrated the violation of Notification No. 9/96-Cus based on the route of importation from Tinsukia Railway station, near the Nepal border.

5. The appellant's reliance on a previous tribunal decision was dismissed, as the current case involved goods clearly marked as "Made in China," unlike the previous case where the country of origin was not specified. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, finding no fault in the order and rejecting the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the decision to confiscate the goods and impose penalties, as the Department successfully demonstrated the violation of the relevant notification based on the suspicious route of importation and lack of verifiable connections to the legally imported consignment.