2019 (6) TMI 1547 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - truck loaded with large Cardamom - foreign origin goods or not - Confiscation - penalties - HELD THAT - Admittedly, large Cardamom is not a notified item in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act. As such, the onus to prove that the same have been smuggled lies upon the Revenue and is required to be discharged by production of sufficient and positive evidence. Merely based upon the trade opinion indicating the goods to be a foreign origin is not sufficient especially when the appellants have produced the purchase ledger showing the purchase of the same from local person located in India. Even if the trade opinion is accepted, which in any case cannot be considered to be an expert opinion, the fact that the Cardamom may be of foreign origin by itself is not sufficient to hold the same as of smuggled nature. For holding the goods as smuggled, Revenue is expected to produce the evidence to that effect. Revenue in their present appeal has not advanced any evidence to show that the Cardamom in question was smuggled - there are no justification to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Determination of smuggled goods based on trade opinion, burden of proof on Revenue, sufficiency of evidence in confiscation proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The case involved multiple appeals arising from the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of goods suspected to be smuggled. The Customs Authorities initiated proceedings against the appellant for confiscation of a truck loaded with large Cardamom, suspected to be of foreign origin. The appellant claimed that the goods were purchased from local farmers, supported by purchase ledger accounts. The Customs Authorities sought trade opinions from local traders, which indicated the goods' foreign origin.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Lower Authorities relied solely on trade opinions to conclude the goods were smuggled. However, the Commissioner noted the lack of concrete evidence proving illegal smuggling into the country. Citing a Tribunal decision, the Commissioner emphasized the requirement of substantial evidence to establish smuggling. The Commissioner's order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that large Cardamom was not a notified item under the Customs Act, placing the burden on the Revenue to prove smuggling with sufficient and positive evidence. Merely relying on trade opinions, which were not expert opinions, was deemed insufficient. Despite trade opinions suggesting foreign origin, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of evidence directly linking the goods to smuggling activities. The Revenue failed to present such evidence, leading the Tribunal to uphold the Commissioner's decision and reject all appeals filed by the Revenue. The Stay Petition was also disposed of accordingly.