2017 (7) TMI 77 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - betel nuts - evidence - Revenue stated that M/s.DCF Ltd.(Noticee No.7) failed to produce any documentary evidence of receipt and storage of the goods - Held that - there is no material on record of the involvement of the respondents herein. In any event, the respondents are under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India and therefore it is required to establish direct evidence to involve the respondents in the alleged offence. Revenue failed to produce any such materials in their grounds of appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalty on noticees, involvement of various parties in smuggling activity, appeal against penalty imposition, role of Ministry of Consumer Affairs.

Confiscation of Seized Goods:
The case involved the recovery of a consignment of cut Betel Nuts alleged to be of third country origin along with other items. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the seized goods, including Betel Nuts, bicycles, tricycle, and imposed a redemption fine. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the confiscation but rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue for imposing penalties on the noticees.

Imposition of Penalty on Noticees:
The Adjudicating Authority detailed findings regarding the non-imposition of penalties on certain noticees based on investigations. Noticee No.5 was not penalized due to lack of evidence of involvement. Noticee No.6's innocence was established as her mobile number was misused. Noticee Nos. 7-11 were not penalized as their roles were not linked to the smuggling activity. Noticee Nos. 12 & 13 were also not penalized due to insufficient evidence, with a reservation for future proceedings if new evidence emerged.

Involvement of Various Parties in Smuggling Activity:
The Revenue contended that certain noticees failed to produce evidence, made false statements, and were involved in covering up the smuggling activity. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) found no conclusive evidence linking these noticees to the smuggling operation. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) both concluded that the noticees had no role in the smuggling of the seized goods.

Appeal Against Penalty Imposition:
The Revenue appealed for the imposition of penalties on the noticees, arguing discrepancies in statements and involvement in covering up the smuggling activity. However, the Tribunal found no grounds for imposing penalties based on the lack of direct evidence linking the noticees to the alleged offense. The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

Role of Ministry of Consumer Affairs:
The case highlighted the involvement of entities under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India. The Commissioner(Appeals) emphasized that the noticees under this ministry had no role in the smuggling activity and were wrongly targeted without evidence. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner(Appeals) and found no reason to interfere with the decision, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeals.