2002 (12) TMI 163 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition by the Commissioner of Customs.
2. Allegations of smuggling and lack of supporting evidence.
3. Claim of ownership and purchase of goods by the appellant from M/s. Raika Impex, Pondicherry.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition by the Commissioner of Customs
The appeal was filed against the order-in-original by the Commissioner of Customs, which confiscated textile fabric goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the appellant. The seized goods were found with Korean markings and valued at Rs. 18,18,200. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the appellant and others involved, eventually ordering confiscation and penalty imposition. However, the appellate tribunal noted that the initial burden was on the Department to prove smuggling, but no evidence was presented to establish this, leading to the order being set aside.

Issue 2: Allegations of smuggling and lack of supporting evidence
The appellant consistently claimed ownership of the goods from the beginning, providing documentation and invoices to support the purchase from M/s. Raika Impex, Pondicherry. Despite denials by Shri C. Gopiram of M/s. Raika Impex, the tribunal found the documentary evidence presented by the appellant to be substantial. The tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence proving smuggling or that the goods were prohibited, emphasizing that the mere presence of Korean markings did not imply smuggling. The tribunal concluded that the Department failed to discharge its burden of proving smuggling, rendering the confiscation and penalty unjustified.

Issue 3: Claim of ownership and purchase of goods by the appellant from M/s. Raika Impex, Pondicherry
The appellant consistently maintained that the goods were purchased from M/s. Raika Impex, Pondicherry, and provided invoices to support this claim. Despite denials by Shri C. Gopiram, the tribunal found the appellant's documentary evidence credible and sufficient to establish ownership. The tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for rejecting the appellant's claim based on Shri C. Gopiram's statement without allowing cross-examination. Ultimately, the tribunal accepted the appellant's claim of ownership and purchase, setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposition due to the lack of evidence proving smuggling and the appellant's credible claim of ownership and purchase supported by documentation.