2005 (3) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods of foreign origin without valid import permit and license.
2. Burden of proof on Revenue to establish goods as smuggled and foreign branded.
3. Competency of witness and cross-examination in establishing foreign origin.
4. Requirement of foreign markings on seized goods.
5. Application of precedents in determining foreign origin of goods.
6. Reimbursement of value of seized goods and released deposits.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal arose from the seizure of Raw Silk said to be of foreign origin without a valid import permit and license. The goods were confiscated, and the appellants were issued a show cause notice based on intelligence gathered by Revenue.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish the goods as smuggled and of foreign origin. The initial statements given by the appellants were resiled, and the onus was on Revenue to prove the foreign nature of the goods.

Issue 3:
The competency of the witness, A. Satyanarayana Shetty, in determining the foreign origin of the goods was questioned. Non-production of Shetty for cross-examination was considered fatal to the case, and the Revenue failed to establish the nature of the goods being of foreign origin.

Issue 4:
The absence of foreign markings on the impugned goods led to the conclusion that it was for the Revenue to establish the goods as smuggled ones. The Tribunal found that the goods were freely importable during the relevant period and that the appellants' claim of purchasing them from the open market was plausible.

Issue 5:
Precedents such as the case of Sajjan India Ltd. were cited to support the argument that when the burden to prove the goods as smuggled or of foreign origin is not met by Revenue, the benefit of doubt must go to the appellants. The Tribunal relied on various judgments to set aside the order confiscating the goods.

Issue 6:
Regarding the reimbursement of the value of the seized goods and the release of deposited amounts, the Tribunal ordered that the appellants were entitled to the value of the goods as recorded in the Mahazar and the refund of amounts deposited for the release of the goods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's reasoning in arriving at the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief.