2014 (10) TMI 553 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No. 30/97-Cus. - smuggling - local sale of exempted goods - import of stainless steel coils & sheets under DEEC Licences (Actual User Condition) - Confiscation of goods - Held that - Undisputedly, the goods were seized at Mumbai on the allegation that the goods were cleared under DEEC Licence availing the benefit of Customs Notification and not paying customs duty on the goods. The proprietor of the respondents in his statement stated that the goods were purchased from various parties and from the statement the department could not bring out that he has admitted that the goods were illicitly imported. The Revenue also could not produce any evidence that the goods were illicitly imported and therefore, the onus was on the department to prove the smuggled nature of the goods which the department could not produce nor the department produce any evidence contrary to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and the same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the lower adjudicating authority's order.
- Allegation of illicit import of stainless steel coils under DEEC Licences.
- Confiscation of goods and penal action against the respondents.
- Lack of evidence to prove illicit import by the department.
- Upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of evidence.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was lodged by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had set aside the decision of the lower adjudicating authority. The case revolved around the import of stainless steel coils under DEEC Licences, with allegations that the goods were being diverted to local markets without paying customs duty. The officers seized 9 MT of stainless steel coils from the respondent's premises, leading to confiscation proceedings and penalties imposed by the lower adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the department failed to prove the illicit import of the goods, prompting the appeal by the Revenue.

The department contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider crucial details such as the lack of documentation like delivery challan or Octroi receipt to justify the quantity of goods seized. They argued that the respondents could not provide adequate records to support the goods' presence at the warehouse. Despite these arguments, the Tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions and records. It was noted that the department could not establish that the goods were illicitly imported based on the proprietor's statement and the lack of contrary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof rested on the department, and since they failed to provide substantial evidence of smuggling, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal as they could not substantiate the claim of illicit import. The lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations led to the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the lower adjudicating authority's decision was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was deemed devoid of merit and subsequently dismissed.