9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of loose diamonds and diamond studded jewelry under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Application of Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962. 3. Burden of proof on ownership of seized goods. 4. Grouping and inventory of seized goods. 5. Discharge of burden under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962. Confiscation of Goods: The revision applications were filed against orders-in-appeal confirming the confiscation of loose diamonds and diamond studded jewelry under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Board upheld the confiscation and imposed penalties on the applicants. The main issue raised was the applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, particularly regarding the uncertainty of the seized diamonds being actual diamonds and the origin of the goods. The Board concluded that Section 123 was rightly invoked, shifting the burden of proof to the applicants to establish the legality of the seized goods. Application of Section 123: The applicants had initially disputed the invocation of Section 123 but later abandoned that plea during the appeal before the Board. It was established that Section 123 was applicable, and the burden to prove the goods were not smuggled rested on the applicants. The Board emphasized that once a plea is abandoned, it cannot be raised in a higher forum. Therefore, the applicants were required to demonstrate that they satisfactorily discharged the burden under Section 123. Burden of Proof: The Government held that the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act was not discharged by the applicants regarding the loose diamonds. The applicants' explanations regarding the origin and ownership of the seized goods were deemed insufficient and raised doubts about the legality of the items. Consequently, the confiscation of certain items was upheld based on the failure to prove their lawful acquisition. Grouping and Inventory: The seized goods were grouped and inventoried, with specific details provided for each group, including loose diamonds, nose pins, and diamond-studded jewelry. The applicants' contentions for each group were analyzed individually based on the explanations provided regarding the procurement and ownership of the items. Discharge of Burden under Section 123: The applicants failed to discharge the burden under Section 123 for certain items, leading to the correct confiscation of those goods. However, in some instances where the explanations provided by the applicants were corroborated and deemed plausible, the burden was considered discharged, resulting in the modification of the lower authorities' orders for the release of specific items to the claimants. In conclusion, the revision application partially succeeded, with the confiscation upheld for some items while modifications were made for others based on the satisfactory discharge of the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
