9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Burden of proof on Revenue for non-notified goods, application of legal principles from Supreme Court judgment.
Burden of proof on Revenue for non-notified goods: The appellant contended that the burden is not always on the Revenue to prove illegal entry of non-notified goods into the country, contrary to the Tribunal's view. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment stating that the burden to establish facts related to smuggling is on the person concerned, and if not proven, adverse inferences may be drawn. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden remains on the Department to prove illegal entry of goods, even if the person has special knowledge. Application of legal principles from Supreme Court judgment: The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the legal position outlined by the Supreme Court in the case referenced. It was noted that discrepancies in the seized goods did not conclusively prove smuggling, as the burden was on the Department to provide evidence to establish the goods were smuggled. The failure of the Department to do so led to the dismissal of the Custom Appeal. Conclusion: The High Court found that the impugned order did not raise any substantial question of law, and subsequently dismissed the Custom Appeal.
|
