1986 (4) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Burden of proof regarding the illicit importation of goods.
4. Admissibility and reliability of evidence, including the appellant's confession and vouchers.
5. Application of legal precedents and principles of evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

Confiscation of Goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant was found in possession of various emeralds and rubies of foreign origin, valued at Rs. 21,473.50, which were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant confessed to the ownership and foreign origin of the stones but failed to provide any documentary evidence of their lawful import. Consequently, the goods were deemed to be illicitly imported and were confiscated under Section 111 of the Act. The appellate authority confirmed the confiscation, citing the appellant's failure to prove the licit importation of the goods.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
A penalty of Rs. 5,000 was initially imposed on the appellant, which was later reduced to Rs. 1,000 on appeal. The penalty was based on the appellant's involvement in the unlawful acquisition, possession, and transportation of the goods, knowing that they were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. The appellant's admission of the foreign origin of the goods and his failure to provide credible evidence of lawful importation were key factors in upholding the penalty.

Burden of Proof Regarding the Illicit Importation of Goods:
The appellant argued that the burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish that the goods were smuggled. The Tribunal clarified that while the initial burden of proof lies with the Revenue, this burden shifts to the appellant once the foreign origin of the goods is admitted. The appellant's failure to produce credible evidence of lawful importation shifted the burden back to him, which he failed to discharge.

Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:
The appellant's written confession, stating that the stones were of South African and Burmese origin, was a significant piece of evidence. This confession was never revoked. Additionally, the vouchers produced by the appellant during the hearing were deemed unreliable as they lacked serial numbers and were not mentioned in the initial reply to the show-cause notice. The Tribunal found that the appellant's belated production of these vouchers without any corroborative evidence further weakened his case.

Application of Legal Precedents and Principles of Evidence:
The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court decisions to elucidate the principles of burden of proof and the admissibility of circumstantial evidence. It was emphasized that the Revenue is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision. The appellant's admission of the foreign origin of the goods and his failure to provide credible evidence of lawful importation were sufficient to infer that the goods were smuggled. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's conduct and the lack of credible evidence corroborated the conclusion that the goods were illicitly imported.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed based on the appellant's failure to prove the lawful importation of the goods, the reliability of his confession, and the application of established legal principles regarding the burden of proof and circumstantial evidence. The confiscation of the goods under Section 111 and the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, were upheld.