2020 (1) TMI 488 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Betel Nuts - Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - burden to prove - HELD THAT - Betel nuts are not notified items under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, hence the onus to prove that the same was of foreign origin and too smuggled lies solely on the Revenue. Foreign origin have been admitted by the Appellant and have produced the supporting documents, which are found to be correct - Betel nuts are not notified goods, and the onus was discharged by Appellant by producing the supporting documents. There could be no mens rea for smuggling as the duty payable was only 5% under Indo Myanmar Trade under Notification 09/1995-Customs. Betel nut was also importable at NIL rate of duty Notification 96/08-Customs and 09/2009-Customs, under Scheme of Duty Free, Quota Free Import from Least Developed Country to which Myanmar belong. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denovo decision on appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Seizure of betel nuts allegedly smuggled from Myanmar.
3. Admissibility of purchase documents and supporting evidence.
4. Burden of proof on the Revenue for seized goods of foreign origin.
5. Duty payable under Indo Myanmar Trade Agreement and relevant Customs notifications.
6. Setting aside the Tribunal's order for denovo decision.

Issue 1: Denovo decision on appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant filed a Misc. Application for a denovo decision of the appeal, which was rejected by the Tribunal but later set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya. The High Court directed for a fresh decision on the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to the remand of the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing.

Issue 2: Seizure of betel nuts allegedly smuggled from Myanmar:
Customs officers seized four trucks carrying dry betel nuts allegedly smuggled from Myanmar. The Commissioner of Customs passed an order confiscating the seized vehicles and imposing fines and penalties on various individuals involved in the transportation and ownership of the goods. The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, leading to the subsequent appeal to the High Court and the direction for a fresh decision.

Issue 3: Admissibility of purchase documents and supporting evidence:
The appellant claimed ownership of the seized betel nuts, presenting purchase documents and credit memos from suppliers in Mizoram. However, discrepancies were noted in the description of the goods, leading to doubts regarding the authenticity of the documents. The High Court considered the affidavits of the suppliers confirming the sale of goods to the appellant, emphasizing the importance of verifying the genuineness of the transaction.

Issue 4: Burden of proof on the Revenue for seized goods of foreign origin:
Betel nuts, being non-notified items under the Customs Act, placed the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggling on the Revenue. The appellant admitted the foreign origin of the goods and provided supporting documents, which were found to be genuine. The Tribunal's findings were challenged based on the lack of conclusive evidence linking the seized goods to smuggling activities.

Issue 5: Duty payable under Indo Myanmar Trade Agreement and relevant Customs notifications:
The High Court analyzed the duty payable on the imported betel nuts under the Indo Myanmar Trade Agreement and relevant Customs notifications. The appellant demonstrated compliance with duty payment requirements, highlighting the negligible duty rates applicable to the imported goods. The Court emphasized the absence of mens rea for smuggling due to the duty rates and import schemes in place.

Issue 6: Setting aside the Tribunal's order for denovo decision:
The High Court of Meghalaya set aside the Tribunal's order, directing a fresh decision on the appeal. The Court's detailed analysis of the case, including the admissibility of evidence, burden of proof, and duty payment considerations, led to the decision to remand the case back to the Tribunal for a reevaluation and a subsequent favorable outcome for the appellant.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal intricacies and procedural aspects involved in the judgment, focusing on the key issues addressed by the Hon'ble High Court and the subsequent directions for a fresh decision by the Tribunal.