2002 (2) TMI 207 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of ball bearings, redemption fine, imposition of personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation of Ball Bearings:
The appellant, a trader in ball bearings, had his goods seized during a raid, leading to confiscation by the Commissioner of Customs, Shillong. The appellant claimed to have purchased the ball bearings from various parties and presented bills as evidence. However, the bills were found to be fake upon verification by Customs, New Delhi. The Tribunal emphasized that ball bearings are non-notified items, placing the burden on the Revenue to prove smuggling. The Tribunal cited precedents where the existence of fake supplier firms was not considered sufficient evidence to establish illegal import, especially when the goods are freely available in the market. As there was no concrete evidence presented by the Revenue proving the contraband nature of the ball bearings, the confiscation was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside.

Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty:
In addition to confiscation, a redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a personal penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- were imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the burden of proving the goods were smuggled lay with the Revenue, and the mere existence of fake supplier firms did not automatically indicate smuggling. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden of proof of smuggled nature of non-notified items like ball bearings lies with the Revenue. As there was no substantial evidence provided by the Revenue to establish the contraband nature of the goods, the imposition of the redemption fine and personal penalty was deemed unwarranted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision in this case focused on the lack of concrete evidence presented by the Revenue to prove the ball bearings were smuggled, despite the existence of fake supplier firms. Emphasizing the burden of proof on the Revenue for non-notified items, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and personal penalty imposed on the appellant. The judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity for substantial evidence to establish smuggling allegations, especially for freely available goods in the market.