2015 (11) TMI 1329 - AT - Customs

Seizure of goods - Illegal import - allegation of smuggling of goods - Held that - Ownership of the seized/confiscated goods is uncontested. Shri Dipak Chakraborty of Siliguri in his statement dated 26/06/2009 stated that he has booked 23 bundles of goods from Jalpaiguri to New Delhi under PW Bill No. D 3988885 on 4/06/2009. Respondents have produced trading invoices of the seized/confiscated goods which are not brand name wise. Due to non matching of brandwise description in the trading invoices and the bills of entry produced/statements recorded it is the case of the Revenue that seized goods are of smuggled nature. In this regard first appellate authority has correctly held that documentary evidences cannot override the oral statements. In this regard it is observed that CESTAT in the case of Manish Kumar Jain Vs. C.C., Chennai (2008 (3) TMI 574 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) has also held it to be so. So far as discrepancies in matching the details of the seized goods with the documents produced by the Respondents is concerned, following has been held by Bombay High Court in C.C. (P) Vs. Mahendra Singh Purohit (2007 (8) TMI 358 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY) - Revenue has only raised suspicion on the origin of seized goods but has not discharged the burden as to how seized goods were of smuggled nature when Respondents have produced copies of trading invoices. In view of the above observations and the settled proposition law this bench does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside Order-in-Original.
2. Discrepancies in brand names of seized goods.
3. Ownership of seized goods.
4. Burden of proof on Revenue regarding smuggled goods.

Analysis:
1. The three appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 30/09/2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Patna, which set aside Order-in-Original No. 4-CUS/ADC/DRI/2011. The Revenue argued discrepancies in the first appellate authority's decision regarding the illegal import of seized goods based on presumption and assumption.

2. The Revenue contended that the brand names of the seized goods did not match those mentioned in the traders' statements, raising suspicions of smuggling. However, the Respondents argued that proper invoices accompanied the goods, citing case laws supporting their position.

3. The ownership of the seized/confiscated goods was uncontested, as per the statement of a party involved in the transaction. The Respondents provided trading invoices for the goods, although the brand names did not match with the bills of entry, leading the Revenue to suspect smuggling.

4. The burden of proof regarding the smuggled nature of the goods lay on the Revenue. The Tribunal and the Bombay High Court emphasized that discrepancies in duty paying documents did not automatically prove smuggling, and the Revenue must provide positive evidence to support their claim. As the Revenue failed to establish how the seized goods were smuggled when trading invoices were presented, the bench upheld the first appellate authority's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish the smuggled nature of seized goods, emphasizing the importance of positive evidence over discrepancies in documents. The decision highlighted the need for concrete evidence to support allegations of smuggling, ultimately leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.