2017 (11) TMI 1789 - AT - Customs

Smuggling or not - Cut Betel Nuts - non-notified goods - appellants submitted that mere running away of the driver at the time of interception of the conveyance would not tantamount that the goods are of smuggled nature - Held that - The appellants produced the purchase documents. It has also particularly produced the Custom s auction documents in respect of the purchase of the seized material. No verification was conducted. The case of the Revenue is that that seized goods were coming from Rascaul side and going to Kotwa whereas the appellant claimed that it was purchased in Patna - the goods cannot be seized and confiscated merely depending on transport route without verification of the documents. The confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of Betel Nuts and truck.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Burden of proof on department regarding smuggled goods.
4. Reliance on purchase documents and auction documents by the appellants.

Seizure and Confiscation of Betel Nuts and Truck:
The Preventive Officers intercepted a truck loaded with Cut Betel Nuts, leading to the seizure. Statements by individuals regarding ownership and purchase of the goods were provided. The adjudicating authority confiscated the Betel Nuts, imposed redemption fines, and seized the truck, along with imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty under the Customs Act, 1962:
The redemption fine of &8377; 1,62,250/- for the Betel Nuts and &8377; 80,000/- for the truck, along with penalties of &8377; 1,00,000/- and &8377; 50,000/- on the individuals were imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Burden of Proof on Department Regarding Smuggled Goods:
The appellants argued that the department needed to prove that the goods were smuggled, especially since Betel Nuts are non-notified items. They relied on various decisions to support their claim, emphasizing that the mere act of the driver running away did not imply the goods were smuggled.

Reliance on Purchase Documents and Auction Documents by the Appellants:
The appellants presented purchase documents and Customs auction documents to support their case. The Tribunal noted that no verification was conducted, and discrepancies existed regarding the origin of the goods. It was concluded that confiscation and penalties based solely on transport routes without document verification were unjustified. Consequently, the appeal by the appellants was allowed, and the decision was pronounced on 16-11-2017.