2023 (10) TMI 181 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods imported - penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - misuse of its IEC - forgery of signature - no request for cross-examination made - burden to prove - HELD THAT - The assessee is trying to blow hot and cold at the same end; on the one hand, he writes a letter complaining about the misuse of its IE Code, two days later he says that there is no misuse of his code insofar as the present bills-of-entry are concerned. But in any case, when a complaint which is of serious nature is received, the authority has initiated investigation into the same and hence, we find that the subsequent letters/request made by the assessee while the investigation was on, were only to distract the progress of the investigation. There is also a serious issue as to the signatures in document accompanying the bills of entry assessee s manager categorically denies some of the signature as his own insofar as some of the signatures are concerned; he clearly says that there were some differences, which fact has not at all been denied by the assessee in any of his pleadings either before the lower authority or before us. Hence, the fact that there were differences in signature stood established. It has been clearly admitted that in the clearance process, the assessee himself had filed the documents on self-clearance basis without engaging the services of CHA. The investigation carried by the SIIB, as brought out in the impugned order, clearly establishes that neither the appellant-assessee nor the firm in the name of M/s. Ghazzali Trading, Chennai did seek any clearance on self-clearance basis, which is a very serious issue according to us. Other than merely claiming so, the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in his support. The assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the goods in question imported under the air way bills/bills-of-entry in dispute were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to the Revenue is the confiscation of the same - the Revenue need not prove the owner of the goods; when a claimant does not prove that the goods in question belongs to him, it is not for the Revenue to thereafter establish a certain actual owner of the goods. The assessee made the Revenue believe his words, which resulted in the initiation of investigation and thereafter, he also claimed that he was the actual owner of the goods imported - the assessee could be held to be any person within the meaning of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the Revenue is justified in imposing penalty on the assessee-appellant. There are no merit in the appeals, for which reason the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves issues related to misuse of Importer Exporter Code (IEC), self-clearance basis filing, variation in signatures on documents, initiation of investigation by Revenue, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, and the burden of proof on the importer.

Misuse of IEC:
The appellant had a strange history originating from a letter written by the assessee himself alleging misuse of its IEC. The Revenue initiated an investigation into the alleged misuse based on the letter, leading to summoning of the assessee and its manager. The manager denied signing all documents accompanying the bills-of-entry, raising doubts about the authenticity of the filings.

Self-Clearance Basis Filing:
The appellant claimed to have filed the documents on a self-clearance basis without engaging a Custom House Agent (CHA). However, investigation revealed no such request for self-clearance was made in the appellant's name, casting doubt on the filing process.

Variation in Signatures:
There were discrepancies in signatures on the documents filed for clearance, with the manager denying some signatures as his own. The appellant failed to explain these differences or request cross-examination of the manager, indicating a lack of clarity regarding the authenticity of the filings.

Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:
The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Order-in-Original confirmed these demands, leading to the filing of appeals. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the imported goods, justifying the confiscation and penalty imposition.

Burden of Proof and Conclusion:
The Tribunal observed that the appellant's actions during the investigation were inconsistent, leading to distractions from the ongoing inquiry. As the appellant could not establish ownership of the goods beyond reasonable doubt, the Revenue was deemed justified in confiscating the goods and imposing penalties. The appeals were dismissed based on the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments.