2010 (2) TMI 542 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods and penalty - seized under belief that they were of foreign origin, consignments had neither name and address of the consignor nor of consignee Goods were part of consignment imported on earlier - goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act Held that - address of both the consignor and consignee was not available is baseless- appeal for confiscation and penalty by the Department is therefore, rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 6-2-2009 regarding the seizure of goods.
- Dispute over the origin of seized goods and ownership claim.
- Failure to notify goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
- Allegation of smuggling and foreign origin of goods.
- Consideration of onus of proof on the Department.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was filed by the Department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 6-2-2009 concerning the seizure of goods by the Customs Officer of Gonda on 2-2-2005. The seized goods, 9 bags of "Shilajeet" and 10 bags of "Jatamasi," were valued at &8377; 1.90 lakhs and were suspected to be of foreign origin due to missing information on the PW Bills regarding the consignor and consignee.

2. One Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava claimed that the seized goods were part of an import by M/s. M.N. Traders in 1999. However, the original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty of &8377; 10,000 on Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, stating that he, being a Nepal-based supplier, could not claim ownership of the seized goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside this order, emphasizing that the Department had not proven that the goods were of foreign origin and smuggled into India, shifting the onus of proof onto the Department.

3. The Tribunal noted that the seized goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and were seized within India from a Railway Station. The Tribunal found the allegation that the PW did not contain the names of the consignor and consignee to be unconvincing, as it was possible for the consignor to send goods consigned to self. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the original authority's decision based on the lack of evidence proving foreign origin and smuggling, ultimately setting aside the order of absolute confiscation and the penalty.

4. Considering that the Department failed to discharge the onus of proving the foreign origin and smuggling of the goods, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of verifying claims and meeting the burden of proof in cases involving the seizure and ownership of goods suspected to be of foreign origin or smuggled into India.