9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of cloves under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 2. Violation of principles of natural justice 3. Proof of foreign origin of seized cloves 4. Discrepancy in quantity of cloves purchased and seized 5. Compliance with search procedures under Section 165 C.P.C. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original confiscating 274 Kgs. of cloves under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant sought the release of the cloves confiscated by the Additional Collector. The Customs officers seized the cloves from the appellant's premises based on intelligence information, as the cloves were of foreign origin and lacked valid acquisition documents. 2. The appellant disclosed purchasing the cloves from a Delhi firm and provided a bill as evidence. A show cause notice was issued, and after adjudication, the Additional Collector confiscated the cloves. The appellant's representative argued that the order violated natural justice, lacked proof of foreign origin, and contained discrepancies. The appellant contended that cloves are grown in India and the seized goods were legally acquired. 3. The Respondent justified the confiscation, claiming the cloves were of foreign origin and banned for importation. The Respondent pointed out discrepancies in the quantity of cloves purchased and seized, questioning the appellant's claim. The burden of proof was placed on the appellant to establish the legality of the seized goods, citing relevant legal precedents. 4. The Tribunal found no prima facie material supporting the reasonable belief that the cloves were of foreign origin. The Tribunal emphasized that the seized cloves being of foreign origin lacked expert opinion and contradicted the assertion based on visual examination. The Tribunal referenced "The Wealth of India" to establish that cloves are grown in India, undermining the claim of foreign origin. 5. The Tribunal held that the order violated natural justice by relying on verifications not disclosed to the appellant. The order went beyond the allegations in the show cause notice, misinterpreting the bill's relevance. The search procedures were also deemed inadequate, as reasons for the search were not recorded as required by law. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to support the seized cloves being of foreign origin or smuggled, setting aside the impugned order and ordering the return of the seized cloves to the appellant.
|
