2014 (9) TMI 472 - HC - Customs

Import of copper scrap - smuggling from Nepal - tribunal allowed the appeal of the accused on finding that there was no evidence to effect that the confiscated goods were of foreign origin and as such confiscation and imposition of penalty could not be sustained. - Held that - learned Appellate Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the statement of Mohd. Ujair recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the statement of Mohd. Fareed the owner of the truck from which it was established that the bills were subsequently prepared in order to cover up the illegal transportation of the copper scrap and the opinion expressed by M/s Gohania Engineering Works, Kheri was merely an opinion was not definite and is on presumption. The order of the tribunal can not be allowed to stand and is liable to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh with the direction that the appeal be decided afresh in the light of the evidence on record and the observations made in this judgment. - matter remanded back - Decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on interception of truck loaded with old iron and copper scrap, confiscation, and penalties imposed.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 arising from an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. The case revolves around the interception of a truck loaded with old iron and copper scrap based on telephonic information. The truck was found to contain copper scrap of suspected foreign origin, leading to the arrest of three individuals and seizure of the truck. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued, resulting in the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on certain individuals by the Joint Commissioner Customs, Lucknow.

The respondents appealed the order before CESTAT New Delhi, where the appeal was allowed on the grounds of insufficient evidence to prove the confiscated goods were of foreign origin. The Commissioner of Customs challenged this decision under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, found that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider crucial statements recorded during the investigation, indicating illegal transportation of the scrap materials. The Court noted discrepancies in the statements of the respondents, suggesting a deliberate attempt to cover up the illegal activity.

The Court disagreed with the Appellate Tribunal's findings and concluded that the impugned order could not stand. As a result, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Court directed the Tribunal to reexamine the evidence on record and make a decision based on the observations made in the judgment. The Court emphasized the need for an expedited hearing due to the age of the case, highlighting the importance of a prompt resolution in the matter.