2024 (6) TMI 454 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Absolute Confiscation - levy of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - illegal export of of 154 number of mobile phones - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the goods in question were seized when they were moving within the territory of India about more than 60 Kms away from Bangladesh Border. Just because the Appellant was not carrying any proper document, it cannot be directly presumed that the goods were being illegally transported to Bangladesh. It is seen from the records that inspite of having the names and mobile numbers of the persons who had placed the order to purchase the mobile phones, no attempt has been made by the Department to verify the facts from these persons. Thus, the Department has failed to provide any proper, cohesive and corroborative evidence to the effect that the goods in question were to be smuggled to Bangladesh illegally. In the absence of such evidence it is clear that the proceedings have been initiated only on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. The absolute confiscation and penalty set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Illegal export of smart mobile phones, absolute confiscation of goods, penalty imposed under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:
1. The Appellant was intercepted by police officials while transporting 154 smart mobile phones without proper documents, leading to suspicion of illegal export to Bangladesh. Customs officials seized the goods and vehicle, and after due process, absolute confiscation of the phones and imposition of penalties were ordered.

2. The Appellant argued that selling mobile phones without invoices is a common practice to avoid State Vat Tax. He provided details of the supplier and recipients of the phones, highlighting lack of investigation by the Department with the involved persons.

3. The Consultant pointed out discrepancies in the Department's approach, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence for illegal export. The Adjudicating Authority's findings were questioned, and it was argued that the proceedings were based on assumptions.

4. The Learned AR supported the confiscation and penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

5. After hearing both sides and reviewing the documents, it was noted that the Department failed to provide concrete evidence of illegal export. Lack of verification with involved persons indicated a basis of presumption in the proceedings.

6. Consequently, the Appeal was allowed, and the confiscation of mobile phones and penalty on the Appellant were set aside.

7. The judgment clarified that no decision was made regarding other noticees not challenged in the Appeal.