2003 (7) TMI 205 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of synthetic fabrics and synthetic laces as smuggled goods.
2. Imposition of penalty under the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Confiscation of Synthetic Fabrics and Synthetic Laces as Smuggled Goods:
The primary issue was whether the synthetic fabrics and synthetic laces seized from the appellant's godowns were liable for confiscation as smuggled goods. The appellant contended that they were traders in locally procured textiles and provided invoices from M/s. NIA and M/s. Alpine Overseas to substantiate their claim. The Commissioner, however, found that the goods were not conclusively linked to the provided bills of entry, leading to the confiscation order.

The appellant argued that the goods were imported legally and that the Committee's report supported their claim, noting that the physical appearance, nature, and description of the goods matched the bills of entry. The Tribunal in a related case (Anil Mahajan) had previously held that the goods were imported in accordance with the law and were not illicit.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had provided a plausible source for the goods, and there was no evidence from the Revenue to prove the goods were smuggled. The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act was on the appellant, which they had discharged by providing the bills of entry and other documents.

Imposition of Penalty under the Customs Act:
The Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the appellant, arguing that the appellant failed to produce documents at the time of seizure and that part of the goods were procured clandestinely. The appellant countered that the documents were subsequently produced and that the absence of documents at the time of seizure did not imply the goods were smuggled.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence to show lawful acquisition of the goods. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including S.K. Chains and Samir Kumar Roy, which held that providing lawful acquisition documents suffices to discharge the burden of proof.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had discharged their burden of proof and that the Committee's report, which was considered in the Anil Mahajan case, supported the appellant's claim. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, thereby nullifying the penalty imposed on the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation and penalty orders. The appellant successfully demonstrated lawful acquisition of the goods, and the Committee's report corroborated their claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of documents at the time of seizure could not alone substantiate the claim of smuggling, especially when subsequent documentation was provided.