Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1159 - AT - CustomsSmuggling or not - Betel Nuts - whether the goods in question were being transported from Raxul (Nepal) and were of foreign origin having no licit documents? - burden to prove - HELD THAT - There is no proper explanation forthcoming as to why the truck has proceeded in the northern direction towards Chhapwa when Patna was located to the south of Motihari. Had the Appellant produced these details before the Adjudicating Authority then they could have claimed that they have provided enough evidence towards legitimacy of the transaction. Having failed to do so, they cannot take the plea that the Department has not discharged their onus. In such cases the onus gets shifted from one party to another. When initially the truck was seized and proceedings were initiated by way of Show Cause Notice, it was for the Appellant to counter the same along with proper documentary evidence. If this was done, it can be taken that the Appellant has shifted onus to the Department, and only in that case, the Department has to counter the same to fortify their initial allegations. As can be seen from the factual matrix, the Appellant has failed to discharge the onus placed on him. There are no merits in the arguments adduced by the Appellant and see no need to interfere with the Order passed by the Appellate Authority - appeal filed by the appellant dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the interception of a truck carrying Betel Nuts, ownership claim of the consignment, alleged smuggling of goods, and imposition of Redemption Fine and penalty. Ownership Claim of the Consignment: The Appellant claimed ownership of a consignment of Betel Nuts seized by Customs officials. The Appellant submitted that the goods were purchased within India and provided details of the purchase transaction. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a Redemption Fine and penalty, alleging that the goods were of foreign origin. The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority erred in ignoring the evidence provided, including purchase details and statements from the vendor. The Appellant contended that the Department failed to prove the goods were smuggled, and therefore, the Appeal should be allowed. Alleged Smuggling of Goods: The Authorized Representative argued that the consignment was moving from Raxaul to Motihari, contrary to the Appellant's claim of transportation from Motihari to Patna. The absence of a transit Invoice Challan and delayed ownership claim raised suspicions. The Adjudicating Authority questioned the Appellant's credibility due to the delay in claiming ownership, lack of proper documentation, and financial inconsistencies. The AR maintained that the goods were of foreign origin and should be confiscated. The AR urged for the dismissal of the Appeal based on these grounds. Decision and Rationale: After hearing both sides and examining the documents, the Tribunal noted the lack of crucial documentation, such as the purchase invoice and sale invoice. The Tribunal highlighted discrepancies in the Appellant's claims regarding the direction of transportation and payment details. The Tribunal emphasized the Appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to establish the legitimacy of the transaction. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant's arguments and upheld the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the Appeal.
|