Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2000 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2000 (5) TMI 80 - AT - Customs

Issues: Appeal against confiscation order, burden of proof regarding smuggled goods, relevance of notifications regarding seized goods

In this judgment, the appellate tribunal was presented with an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal challenging the confiscation of certain items seized from the appellant. The equipment in question included digital video mixtures, central processing units, video cameras, video cassettes, and circuit boards. The appellant, in his statement, claimed to have purchased the goods from anonymous suppliers without receiving any bills or documents. The Additional Commissioner rejected baggage receipts provided by the appellant, citing discrepancies with the seized goods. The appellant argued that the burden of proving the goods as smuggled lay with the department, emphasizing that the goods did not fall under relevant sections of the Act at the time of seizure.

The tribunal considered the value of the goods, the appellant's initial admission, and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It was noted that the goods seized did not fall under specific sections of the Act at the time of seizure. The appellant referred to instructions issued by the Additional Commissioner indicating that certain goods were no longer notified under relevant sections, shifting the burden of proof to the department. A previous order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was also cited, highlighting the requirement to prove that seized goods were smuggled into India.

The tribunal acknowledged the dubious nature of the transaction and the lack of documentation for the goods. However, it emphasized that the burden of proving that the goods were smuggled rested with the department, which had not been discharged. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the goods were not liable for confiscation and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The tribunal also left it open for the department to investigate possible contraventions of other laws such as Income Tax and Sales Tax with the relevant authorities.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates