9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by Central Excise authorities and imposition of penalty. 2. Burden of proof on Customs authorities in cases involving restricted foreign goods. Analysis: Issue 1: Seizure of goods and penalty imposition The petitioner's premises were searched, and 19,700 Gillette Blades were seized by Central Excise authorities. The petitioner initially claimed the goods were purchased from a non-existent company, later changing the story to another individual. Despite explanations and submissions, the authorities were not satisfied and issued show cause notices leading to the confiscation of goods and a penalty of Rs. 2,000 under Sec. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition to challenge this order. Issue 2: Burden of proof in cases involving restricted foreign goods The main contention was whether the seizure of goods was proper and in line with the Sea Customs Act, considering the burden of proof on Customs authorities. The goods were of foreign origin and restricted but not prohibited. The burden of proof lies on the Customs authorities, and it was argued that they did not discharge this burden adequately. The court discussed different types of burdens, including evidential burden, which requires producing sufficient evidence justifying a finding in favor of the party bearing it. It was emphasized that direct evidence is not always necessary, and proof can be inferred from circumstances, contradictory statements, conduct, and intricacies of the transaction. The court referred to previous decisions, including one by the Supreme Court, highlighting the importance of conduct, credibility of statements, and suspicions surrounding transactions in determining the character of goods. In the present case, the petitioner's varying statements, the non-existence of the selling firm, suspicious bills, and the nature of the transaction led the court to conclude that the goods were likely smuggled and not purchased in the regular course of business. The Customs authorities were deemed to have discharged the burden of proof, even without direct evidence. In conclusion, the Writ Petition was dismissed, but the petitioner succeeded concerning the penalty. The judgment underscores the significance of burden of proof in cases involving restricted foreign goods and the role of evidence in establishing the character of transactions.
|
