1988 (10) TMI 233 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad regarding the confiscation of watch movements of foreign origin.
- Burden of proof on the Department to establish the watch movements are smuggled.
- Validity of the documents produced by the appellant to prove legal acquisition of the watch movements.
- Expert opinion on the nature of the watch movements.
- Relevance of past judgments cited by both parties.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, regarding the confiscation of watch movements of foreign origin valued at Rs. 84,360. The appellant claimed the watch movements were legally acquired and produced photo copies of bills and challans to support his claim. However, discrepancies were noted, and the goods were seized. The Department verified the watch movements and obtained an expert opinion confirming they were smuggled. The appellant failed to produce original bills and documents, shifting the burden to prove the legality of the acquisition onto him.

The appellant argued that the Department failed to establish that the watch movements were smuggled and cited relevant judgments. The Department contended that the bills produced by the appellant did not cover the seized watch movements and relied on expert opinion. The Tribunal noted that the Department had disproved the bills and obtained expert opinion, shifting the burden onto the appellant to prove the legality of the acquisition. The Tribunal found the citations provided by the appellant's counsel not relevant to the case at hand.

In its analysis, the Tribunal emphasized that the Department had sufficiently discharged its initial burden of proving the watch movements were smuggled. The appellant's failure to provide original documents and the expert opinion supported the Department's claim. The Tribunal distinguished the past judgments cited by both parties, stating they were not significant to the current case. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the order of confiscation and penalty imposed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad.