2013 (7) TMI 16 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - import of notified goods - order of CESTAT - held that - it is seen that the CESTAT has merely quoted the reasoning given by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and has not given any independent finding as to whether the Tribunal has agreed with the reasoning given by the Lower Appellate Authority or not. In the absence of any prima facie view expressed by the CESTAT regarding the correctness of the order passed by the Lower Appellate Authority, it is difficult to sustain the order of CESTAT. Order of CESTAT is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file CESTAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provision under Section 123 of the Customs Act regarding burden of proof in case of import of non-notified goods.
2. Justification of CESTAT's findings on confiscation of goods and failure to produce tangible evidence of smuggling into India.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the order of the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, Western Regional Bench at Mumbai, regarding the interpretation of Section 123 of the Customs Act. The appellant questioned the CESTAT's decision on the burden of proof in the case of import of non-notified goods, emphasizing the respondent's admission under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which indicated smuggling of goods into India. The appellant contended that the CESTAT erred in setting aside the confiscation of goods based on this admission. The High Court observed that the CESTAT merely quoted the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)'s reasoning without providing an independent finding on the agreement with the lower authority's decision. Consequently, the High Court quashed the CESTAT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a prima facie view on the correctness of the lower authority's order.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the justification of CESTAT's decision regarding the failure of the Department to produce tangible evidence of smuggling goods into India despite the respondent's admission under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The appellant contested the CESTAT's finding that the Department lacked positive evidence to prove smuggling, alleging a violation of Customs Act and Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act, 1992. However, the High Court's analysis primarily focused on the procedural aspect, noting the absence of a clear stance by CESTAT on the lower authority's decision. The High Court's decision to quash the CESTAT's order and remand the case for fresh consideration did not delve deeply into the substantive aspects of the Department's evidence or the violation of relevant acts.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily addressed procedural deficiencies in the CESTAT's order, emphasizing the need for a clear assessment of the lower authority's decision and independent findings by the appellate tribunal. The issues of burden of proof and evidence of smuggling, while raised in the appeal, were not extensively analyzed in the judgment, which focused more on the procedural irregularities in the CESTAT's decision-making process.