Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (12) TMI 1100 - AT - Customs


Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and vehicles under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant and co-noticees.
3. Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 03/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2020-21 dated 29.04.2020.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 03/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2020-21 dated 29.04.2020, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Central G.S.T. & Central Excise, Patna. The appellant, a proprietor of a trading firm, claimed ownership of goods seized by Customs officers, contending that the goods were of Indian origin and purchased from local farmers. The appellant submitted evidence, including cash receipts signed by farmers, to support the claim that the goods were legally purchased within India. The Customs authorities had seized the goods and vehicles on suspicion of smuggling from Nepal into India. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods and vehicles under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962, along with the imposition of penalties on the appellant and co-noticees.

The adjudicating authority had confiscated the goods but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalties. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the goods were of Indian origin and legally transported within the country. The appellate tribunal observed that the appellant had provided substantial evidence to establish the Indian origin of the goods, including cash receipts and details of the purchase from local farmers. The tribunal noted the lack of evidence from the Department to prove that the goods were smuggled or of foreign origin.

The tribunal held that since the goods were not notified goods under the Customs Act, 1962, the burden was on the Department to prove that the goods were smuggled, which they failed to do. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the confiscation of the goods and vehicles, as well as the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the confiscation and penalties were revoked. The tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of smuggling and the appellant's documentation proving the legal purchase and transportation of the goods within India.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates