1990 (1) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of Goods
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Shillong, regarding the confiscation of Galvanised Steel Sheets seized from the appellant's premises. The appellant contended that the orders passed by the Collector were not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal noted that an earlier order had directed the return of the seized goods to the appellant, but the Collector proceeded with confiscation and imposed penalties despite the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal held that the confiscation was contrary to its orders, invalid, and a flagrant violation of the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the orders of the Tribunal superseded those of the Collector, and the confiscation was set aside based on this ground alone.

Issue 2: Validity of Penalties
The appellant argued that the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 were not justified as there was no evidence to prove that the goods were smuggled. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the burden was on the department to prove the goods were smuggled, and the mere fact that the goods were of foreign origin was not sufficient. The Tribunal cited previous decisions to support the position that the burden of proof rested with the department, especially when the goods were not notified under relevant sections of the Customs Act. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had presented evidence, supported by statements from relevant parties, to show the legitimate purchase of the goods. As there was no clear evidence of smuggling, the imposition of penalties was deemed unjustified and not in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of confiscation and penalties imposed on the appellant, emphasizing that the appellant was entitled to consequential reliefs.