2006 (3) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Even in the case of non-notified goods Department is not relieved of its burden to establish that the goods have entered into the country illegally and that the said goods were smuggled - initially the case of the Revenue was that the seized goods were not the goods imported vide B/E - on re-verification, the only discrepancies were regarding the wrong description of country of origin Dept not discharged burden - impugned order does not give rise to substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Burden of proof on Revenue for non-notified goods

Analysis:
The judgment discussed the issue of burden of proof in cases involving non-notified goods. The appellant contended that it is not always the Revenue's responsibility to prove illegal entry of such goods into the country. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that the burden to establish facts related to smuggling is on the person concerned, and failure to do so may lead to adverse inferences. The Supreme Court clarified that even if the person has special knowledge, the Department is not relieved of proving illegal entry and smuggling of goods.

The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the legal position established by the Supreme Court in the case cited. It was noted that the burden lay on the Department to provide evidence that the seized goods were smuggled, especially when discrepancies were related to description and country of origin. The judgment highlighted that the burden of proof is a question of fact, and in this case, the Department failed to produce sufficient material to establish the goods were smuggled.

Ultimately, the High Court found no substantial legal question arising from the impugned order and dismissed the Custom Appeal in limine. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of the burden of proof in cases involving non-notified goods and smuggling allegations, emphasizing the need for the Department to provide adequate evidence to support their claims.