2005 (3) TMI 364 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of Laser Discs found during search.
2. Applicability of Section 123 and Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Onus of proving smuggled nature of goods.
4. Interpretation of Import Trade Control Policy and Baggage Rules.
5. Requirement of evidence for duty payment.
6. Valuation of goods and duty demands.
7. Confiscation and redemption fine.

Confiscation of Laser Discs found during search:
The appellant, a sole proprietary firm engaged in the circulation of Laser Discs in Surat, faced a Show Cause Notice dated 20-7-1996 after Custom Officers found Laser Discs on their premises. The Department valued the goods and issued an order confiscating them, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine and imposition of a penalty. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, but the Tribunal directed a hearing on merits after condoning the delay. The appellate authority rejected both the appeals filed by the appellant and the department, leading to this appeal.

Applicability of Section 123 and Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal found that the goods under seizure were not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were not specified or notified goods. The onus to prove the smuggled nature of the goods lay with the Customs authorities and could not be shifted to the persons from whose possession the goods were found.

Onus of proving smuggled nature of goods:
The Tribunal emphasized that for goods not specified under Section 123 or Chapter IVA, the onus rested heavily on Customs authorities to prove the illicit non-duty paid nature of acquisition. The appellant was not required to prove duty payment or non-smuggled nature, especially when documents of duty paid and licit acquisition were produced. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for concluding based on the appellant's failure to produce certain evidence, highlighting that commercial transactions need not always be supported by formal agreements or documents.

Interpretation of Import Trade Control Policy and Baggage Rules:
The Tribunal noted the changes in Import Trade Control Policy and Baggage Rules post-1992, allowing the import and sale of goods without stringent restrictions. This shift influenced the interpretation of onus in cases of unnotified goods, emphasizing the heavy burden on Customs authorities to establish illicit acquisition.

Requirement of evidence for duty payment:
The Tribunal rejected the argument that lack of specific evidence like sale deeds or bank transactions automatically indicated smuggling. It highlighted the practical realities where cash payments might be prevalent, especially for goods acquired informally.

Valuation of goods and duty demands:
As no duty demands were made and the duty dues were already discharged by the actual importer, the Tribunal clarified that any duty demands should have been directed at the passenger who initially cleared the goods.

Confiscation and redemption fine:
Since the Tribunal found the goods not to be of smuggled nature, it disallowed the confiscation and redemption fine. It distinguished this case from precedent where false denials and credibility issues were present, emphasizing the lack of such issues in the current scenario.

---