1985 (12) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against the confiscation of T-shirts and half shirts, and penalty imposition.

Detailed Analysis:

Confiscation of T-shirts and Half Shirts:
The case involved a challenge to the confiscation of 24 T-shirts and 29 half shirts, along with a penalty of Rs.250 imposed by the Additional Collector of Customs. The appellant did not dispute the confiscation of other goods. The search conducted revealed the recovery of the T-shirts and half shirts, along with wrist watches, from the appellant's premises. The appellant denied ownership of the watches and claimed that the T-shirts and half shirts were not of foreign origin. The appellant contended that the statement recorded was not voluntary and highlighted that the T-shirts and half shirts were not of foreign origin, questioning the jurisdiction of Customs for seizure and confiscation. The appellant sought to set aside the confiscation order and the imposed penalty.

Legal Burden and Lack of Evidence:
The tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides and emphasized that the T-shirts and half shirts were not notified goods at the relevant time, thus not falling under the Customs Act's provisions. It was noted that the burden to prove the goods were smuggled lay with the department, which failed to provide evidence to discharge this burden. The department relied on the appellant's admission and certain circumstances, but the tribunal highlighted that mere suspicion is not a substitute for proof. The admission that the goods were purchased from passengers coming from abroad did not establish smuggling into India without duty payment or in violation of restrictions. The tribunal concluded that there was no clear evidence to support the confiscation of the T-shirts and half shirts.

Decision on Confiscation and Penalty:
In light of the above analysis, the tribunal set aside the order of confiscation of the T-shirts and half shirts, directing their release to the appellant. However, regarding the penalty and the confiscation of wrist watches, the tribunal noted that the appellant did not challenge that part of the order. As the watches were alleged to be of foreign origin and connected to the appellant's actions, the tribunal upheld the penalty imposition in relation to the watches, which were notified goods. The tribunal allowed the appeal in part, confirming the order in other respects and directing the return of the T-shirts and half shirts to the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal considerations, burden of proof, and the tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision on the confiscation of goods and penalty imposition in the case.