2017 (2) TMI 819 - AT - Customs

Cut betel nuts - import from Nepal - whether the gods imported from Nepal are of smuggling nature? - Held that - The case of Sundarlal v. Commissioner of Customs(Prev.), Patna 2003 (12) TMI 398 - CESTAT, KOLKATA was relied upon, where it was held that in respect of confiscation of Betel Nuts, the burden is on Revenue to prove the smuggled nature of goods and circumstantial evidence relied upon by the department not to take place of legal evidence - the appellant produced the Affidavit, which was discarded by the lower authority as the same was not submitted during investigation/adjudication. It is observed that Betel Nuts is being grown in plenty in north-east area of the country, and in absence of any expert opinion as regards foreign origin of goods, confiscation is not sustainable - confiscation and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Seizure and confiscation of Betel Nuts under Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of Redemption Fine, penalty, and confiscation of the truck
- Appeal against the impugned order dismissing the appeal

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the seizure and confiscation of Betel Nuts under the Customs Act, 1962, along with the imposition of penalties and fines. The case originated from the interception of a truck loaded with Betel Nuts, leading to the confiscation of the goods and the truck under relevant sections of the Customs Act. The Adjudicating Authority imposed fines and penalties on the appellant, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the Betel Nuts were non-notified items, and there was no evidence of them being of smuggled nature besides the uncorroborated statement of the truck driver. The Revenue, represented by the ld.A.R., supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the driver's statement as crucial evidence.

The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the onus shifted to the appellant post-seizure, expecting the appellant to provide evidence regarding the non-smuggled nature of the goods. However, the judgment highlighted the lack of concrete evidence from the Revenue proving the goods' smuggled nature, solely relying on the driver's statement, which lacked corroboration.

The appellant's submission of an Affidavit was disregarded by the lower authority due to its timing. Citing precedents like Sundarlal v. Commissioner of Customs, the judgment emphasized that the burden of proving the smuggled nature of goods rests with the Revenue. It further noted the abundance of Betel Nuts in certain regions and the necessity of expert opinions to establish foreign origins for confiscation to be valid.

Relying on various case laws, the judgment concluded that there was insufficient reason for the confiscation of the Betel Nuts and the imposition of penalties. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, overturning the impugned order.