2008 (4) TMI 135 - AT - Customs

Seizure of goods from parcel at railway station (coming from Hyderabad) - In the absence of any explanation by appellant how the goods which were purchased in Chennai, traveled to Hyderabad, the claim of the appellant that he had purchased these goods from Chennai seems to be baseless - for non-notified goods, the burden of proving that the goods are of smuggled nature is on the Revenue, but at the same time the claimant should be able to justify the legitimate ownership of the goods

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods at CST railway station.
2. Claim of ownership of seized goods from grey market.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
4. Appeal against the order of confiscation.
5. Burden of proof on Revenue for non-notified goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the interception of bundles at CST railway station containing Indian and foreign goods. Some goods were released, while the rest were seized under panchanama. The appellant claimed ownership of digital cameras and electric cells purchased from the grey market in Chennai. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The appellant argued that since the goods were non-notified, they were not liable for confiscation. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support this claim and raised concerns about the lack of notice regarding the sale of confiscated goods. The Revenue countered by highlighting discrepancies in the appellant's claims and the absence of proof of ownership.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalty, citing inconsistencies in the appellant's statements and the failure to provide evidence of legitimate procurement. The appellant's conduct was deemed suspicious, indicating potential collusion with undisclosed operators. The appellant's failure to explain the transportation route of the goods raised doubts about the grey market purchase claim.

4. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal found the appeal meritless due to the lack of tangible evidence supporting the appellant's ownership claim. The burden of proving legitimate ownership rested on the appellant, which remained unfulfilled. The Tribunal affirmed the original order of confiscation and penalty, emphasizing the need for concrete proof in cases involving non-notified goods.

5. The judgment highlights the importance of substantiating ownership claims, especially for non-notified goods subject to confiscation. While the Revenue bears the burden of proving smuggled nature, the claimant must establish legitimate ownership with tangible evidence. In this case, the appellant's failure to provide convincing proof led to the rejection of the appeal and the upholding of the confiscation order.