2019 (10) TMI 698 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Betel nuts - Custom Officer believed that the betel nuts had been illegally smuggled, seized all four trucks along with the betel nuts - HELD THAT - The finding recorded by the adjudicating authority is that there was a gap of one year and secondly, betel nuts in two trucks were whole whereas in two other were split when in the bills of entry, the betel nuts were whole. The issue of trade practice converting betel nuts from whole into spilt has not been looked into. The observation that the appellant could not purchase on credit from four unknown persons is misplaced, when four persons are admitting that they have sold the betel nuts on credit to the appellant, how can that be denied has not been looked into. That apart, four persons have filed four affidavits in this Court admitting that they have sold the betel nuts to the appellant. If any person has to sell his product to anyone and admits to have sold even abruptly creating buyer, that cannot be questioned, this aspect of the case too has not been looked into by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has not appreciated the contentions nor there is any logical reason recorded for agreeing with the findings recorded in the order in original. Whether dry betel nuts could be preserved for more than one year or not, no finding to that effect has been recorded except by showing that there is a gap of one year between import and sale, when according to learned counsel for the appellant dry betel nuts can be preserved after proper treatment for a longer period. Case remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding appeal filed by the appellant afresh - appeal allowed on remand.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Seizure and confiscation of four trucks carrying allegedly smuggled dry betel nuts.
3. Confiscation of vehicles, imposition of fines and penalties on various individuals.
4. Discrepancies in the description of seized goods and imported goods.
5. Appellant's claim of purchasing betel nuts from specific persons and production of supporting documents.
6. Allegations of manipulated papers and fictitious consignments.
7. Inadequate consideration of contentions by the Tribunal.
8. Discrepancies in the physical state of seized betel nuts compared to imported goods.
9. Denial of credit purchases from known individuals.
10. Lack of logical reasoning in Tribunal's findings.
11. Remand of the case for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order seizing and confiscating four trucks carrying dry betel nuts allegedly smuggled from Myanmar. The Commissioner of Customs imposed fines and penalties on multiple individuals, including the appellant, for involvement in the smuggling operation.

2. The appellant claimed to have purchased the betel nuts from specific persons and presented credit memos and bills of entry as evidence. However, discrepancies in the goods' description led to suspicions of manipulation, prompting the seizure.

3. The Tribunal's order failed to address the appellant's contentions effectively, overlooking crucial evidence and not considering the possibility of trade practices in betel nut processing. The Tribunal's conclusions were based on inadequate scrutiny of the facts presented.

4. The judgment highlighted the discrepancies between the physical state of the seized betel nuts and those described in the bills of entry. The Tribunal's dismissal of credit purchases from known individuals was deemed unjustified, especially when affidavits from the sellers corroborated the appellant's claims.

5. The lack of logical reasoning in the Tribunal's findings, including the preservation duration of dry betel nuts, necessitated a remand of the case for a fresh assessment. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and instructed a reevaluation, emphasizing a fair hearing for all parties involved.

← Previous Next →