9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Confiscation of used wearing apparel on the ground of unauthorised importation - Burden of proof on the Department for unnotified goods - Late issue of show cause notice - Proof of acquisition and transportation of goods - Previous judgments on old and used garments - Reasonable belief of smuggling - Nexus between presumption of smuggling and claimants - Compensation for confiscated goods Confiscation of Used Wearing Apparel: The case involved a revision application against the confiscation of five bales of used wearing apparel for unauthorised importation. The applicant challenged the confiscation on various grounds, including the burden of proof on the Department for unnotified goods and the lack of evidence supporting the smuggling allegation. Burden of Proof and Late Issue of Show Cause Notice: During the hearing, the applicant argued that the burden of proving the goods were smuggled lay on the Department, especially for unnotified goods. The applicant also challenged the late issue of the show cause notice beyond the stipulated period, citing legal precedent to support the argument that confiscation was not justified. Proof of Acquisition and Transportation: The applicant presented proof of acquisition from a recognized auctioneer and challenged the rejection of this evidence by the appellate authority. The argument was made that the Department failed to provide reasonable grounds for rejecting the evidence of acquisition and transportation of the goods. Previous Judgments on Old and Used Garments: Several previous judgments were cited, highlighting cases where similar goods were released due to the lack of proof of illegal importation. These judgments emphasized the burden of proof on the Department for old and used garments not notified under the Customs Act. Reasonable Belief of Smuggling: The Government reviewed the case records and noted that the goods originated from a location near the Bangladesh border. However, it was observed that the presumption of smuggling based on this fact was not substantiated, especially considering the lack of evidence linking the goods to actual smuggling activities. Nexus Between Presumption of Smuggling and Claimants: The conclusion was drawn that the Department failed to establish a nexus between their presumption of smuggling and the claimants of the goods. The petitioner's claim with proof of purchase in auction was considered valid, and the Customs Authorities were found lacking in establishing a connection between the goods and alleged smuggling activities. Compensation for Confiscated Goods: Ultimately, the revision application succeeded, and the confiscation of the goods was set aside. The decision also addressed the compensation for the confiscated goods, stating that if the goods had already been disposed of, the applicants should be compensated with the sale proceeds. The rationale for determining compensation was based on relevant case law and decided cases in similar matters.
|
