2020 (2) TMI 765 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - penalty - Illegal attempt for exportation - Export of pesticides without any valid Bill of Export - HELD THAT - It is observed that the Department could not justify the reason for not chasing the persons alleged to have carried the boxes in their hands or on head load on foot to Nepal though at 07.00 hrs. though they had the motor vehicle and manpower - It was also not clear as to how the Driver and Khalasi allowed unknown persons to unload cartons without their permission as no third person was available in that truck/vehicle. It appears that the investigation agency could not prove beyond doubt that the goods were actually attempted to export illegally to Nepal. The activities of the appellants may be suspicious but not enough to hold charge of attempted to export in the absence of positive evidence - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Illegal export of pesticides without valid Bill of Export.
2. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.
4. Mechanical passing of order by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Lack of proper reasoning in the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
6. Failure of the Department to justify actions during investigation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the illegal attempt to export pesticides without a valid Bill of Export. The Customs officers intercepted a truck near the Indo-Nepal border and found 508 cartons out of 530 cartons of pesticides being unloaded without proper documentation. The appellants were alleged to be involved in this illegal act, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.

2. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order without providing adequate reasoning, prompting a remand by the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on the submissions made by the appellants. The subsequent order by the Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted discrepancies in the case, including the presence of the truck at an unauthorized location and lack of satisfactory explanations for certain actions.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that while there were substantial documents supporting the appellants' claims of legality, there were also glaring omissions and commissions, especially regarding the change of the check post and discrepancies in the export process. The order noted that the investigation failed to provide clear evidence of illegal export, leading to the conclusion that the charges were not proven beyond doubt.

4. The Tribunal found that the Department did not adequately justify its actions during the investigation. There were inconsistencies in how the seized documents were handled, lack of explanation for certain events, and failure to provide positive evidence of the illegal export attempt. As a result, the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed with consequential relief.

5. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper investigation, documentation, and justification of decisions in cases involving allegations of illegal activities. It emphasized the need for clear evidence to support charges and the consequences of failing to provide a convincing case against the accused parties.

6. Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural and evidentiary aspects of the case, underscoring the significance of thorough investigations and reasoned decisions in matters of customs violations and penalties.