2013 (11) TMI 1400 - AT - Customs

Confiscation under Section 115(2) - Mis declaration of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Onus to prove - Held that - appellant has to show that the vehicle was used without his knowledge and he did not know the nature of the goods. This submission leads to a conclusion that he did not have the knowledge of the goods being transported which becomes a rebuttable submission only because it is necessary for the department to rebut to show that he had knowledge. In this case, the Commissioner has taken a view that the appellant has to prove beyond doubt that they had no knowledge . This term is used only when a person is being prosecuted and will be subjected to conviction in which case the prosecution is required to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt (and not beyond doubt) . Nowhere it can be said that the appellant has to prove beyond doubt that he has not committed an offence - appellant or his agent or driver of the vehicle or person in-charge of conveyance did not have knowledge of nature of the goods being transported - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues: Confiscation of trailers under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962; Redemption option on payment of fine; Knowledge of goods being transported; Burden of proof on the appellant; Role of appellant's agent, driver, or person in-charge; Customs officer's supervision during loading; Rebutting the presumption of knowledge.

Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Trailers: The four trailers belonging to the appellant were confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, for transporting 'Muriate of Potash' mis-declared as 'Bentonite Powder.' The appellant was given the option to redeem the trailers on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs.

2. Knowledge of Goods Being Transported: The appellant argued that they were not aware of the nature of the goods being transported, emphasizing that Customs officers had examined and cleared the goods for export without raising any concerns about their contents. The appellant contended that it was impossible to visually identify whether the goods were 'Muriate of Potash' or 'Bentonite Powder,' and they had acted in accordance with relevant notifications for safe transportation.

3. Burden of Proof: The Commissioner required the appellant to prove beyond doubt that they had no knowledge of the goods being transported. However, the appellant argued that in quasi-judicial proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the department to establish the case against the appellant to the extent of preponderance of probability, not beyond doubt.

4. Role of Appellant's Agent, Driver, or Person in-Charge: The appellant's representative argued that it was not necessary for the appellant to prove that their agent, driver, or person in-charge of the vehicle also lacked knowledge about the contents of the containers, especially since the department did not raise any such allegations or record statements from them.

5. Customs Officer's Supervision: The appellant highlighted that until the goods were intercepted at the port, no one was aware that the goods were mis-declared. They emphasized that the customs officers had allowed loading of the goods into the containers after examination, indicating that the appellant, their agent, driver, or person in-charge did not have knowledge of the actual contents being transported.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, along with their agent, driver, or person in-charge of the vehicle, did not have knowledge of the nature of the goods being transported. As a result, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of the department proving its case to the extent of preponderance of probability rather than requiring the appellant to prove their innocence beyond doubt.

← Previous Next →