2017 (1) TMI 2 - AT - Customs

Absolute Confiscation - penalty - smuggling - wrist watches - notified goods u/s 123 of the Act - the foreign brand watches seized, are notified goods therefore the burden to prove that the goods are not smuggled is on the person from whom the goods were seized - Held that - the appellant is claiming the ownership of the goods contained in 6 cartons. The invoice submitted by the appellant has been verified by the investigating agency and it was fond that so called supplier M/s. Srusthi Enterprises is not existing on the address given in the invoice. In view of this fact the supplier of goods has not been established. All other documents submitted by the appellant, in my view of no help to the appellant for the reason that when the supplier is not existing at the address given in the invoice then there is no need to go into other documents. I am therefore of the view that since the appellant could not discharge the burden that the goods seized is other than the smuggled goods, the goods have been rightly confiscated absolutely, which is upheld. Imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- - Held that - the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- imposed on the appellant appears to be on higher side, hence, the same needs to be reduced. I therefore reduce the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 40,000/-. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Confiscation of wrist watches seized by customs authorities.
2. Imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Confiscation of wrist watches:
The case involved the seizure of 19 packages containing wrist watches by customs authorities based on the suspicion of smuggling. The appellant claimed ownership of 6 packages and provided documents such as purchase invoices, LR copies, and tax-related documents to prove legitimate purchase. The appellant argued that the goods were not smuggled and should not be confiscated. However, the investigating agency found discrepancies in the verification of the supplier mentioned in the documents submitted by the appellant. The tribunal noted that the burden of proof lies on the person from whom the goods were seized to establish that the goods are not smuggled. As the appellant failed to prove the legitimacy of the goods due to the non-existence of the supplier, the tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the wrist watches. The penalty imposed was reduced considering the appellant's ownership claim of only 6 cartons out of the total seized packages.

2. Imposition of penalty:
The tribunal acknowledged that the penalty imposed on the appellant was based on the confiscation of all 19 packages of wrist watches, despite the appellant claiming ownership of only 6 cartons. Therefore, the tribunal deemed the original penalty amount of ?1,00,000 to be excessive and reduced it to ?40,000. The decision to reduce the penalty was influenced by the discrepancy between the total confiscated goods and the specific ownership claimed by the appellant. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the penalty amount while upholding the confiscation of the wrist watches due to the appellant's failure to provide conclusive evidence of legitimate ownership and non-smuggling.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of the wrist watches as the burden of proof was not discharged by the appellant regarding the legitimacy of the goods. The penalty imposed was reduced considering the discrepancy in ownership claimed by the appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of establishing the legality of goods seized in customs cases and the consequences of failing to meet the burden of proof in such situations.