1991 (8) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of watch movements and wristwatches.
2. Burden of proof regarding smuggled goods.
3. Validity of the purchase documents and affidavit.
4. Confiscation of the scooter.
5. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Watch Movements and Wristwatches:
The Customs Officers intercepted the appellant on 5-5-1983 and recovered 500 pieces of watch movements described as "S.T. 96 SWISS MADE TYPE movements complete 17 Jewels (Swiss Seventeen)" along with two Citizen Quartz watches of foreign origin. The Deputy Collector of Customs (Technical) ordered the confiscation of these items, concluding that the goods were liable to confiscation because the receipt produced was fake, and the firm M/s. M.S. Traders did not exist. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the second appeal to the Tribunal.

2. Burden of Proof Regarding Smuggled Goods:
The appellants contended that the burden of proof that the watch movements were smuggled rested on the Department, citing the Tribunal's decisions in P.C. Aggarwal v. Collector of Customs and Sukumar Mondal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive). The Tribunal noted that the watch movements had markings indicative of foreign origin and were seized based on intelligence. The appellant initially did not possess any bill or voucher and later produced a bill from a non-existent firm. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoonmull, emphasizing that the circumstantial evidence suggested the goods were illicitly imported.

3. Validity of the Purchase Documents and Affidavit:
The appellant provided a photostat copy of Bill No. 549 from M/s. M.S. Traders and an affidavit from the firm's proprietor, Shri M.S. Sharma. However, upon enquiry, it was found that the firm and the address were non-existent. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had the address of the broker who allegedly supplied the watch movements but failed to produce any credible evidence or the broker himself. This led to the conclusion that the documents and affidavit were concocted.

4. Confiscation of the Scooter:
The scooter used to transport the watch movements was also confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the scooter, noting that it was used to carry smuggled goods. However, it set aside the penalty imposed on Shri Nagin Chand Jain, the appellant's brother, as there was no evidence that he allowed his scooter to be used for smuggling with his knowledge or consent.

5. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellants:
The Deputy Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on Shri Sumer Chand Jain and Rs. 500/- on Shri Nagin Chand Jain. The Tribunal upheld the penalty on Shri Sumer Chand Jain, concluding that he dealt with smuggled goods knowingly. However, it set aside the penalty on Shri Nagin Chand Jain due to the lack of evidence of his involvement.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the watch movements, wristwatches, and the scooter, along with the penalty on Shri Sumer Chand Jain. It set aside the penalty on Shri Nagin Chand Jain, allowing his appeal. The judgment emphasized the circumstantial evidence and the appellant's failure to provide credible proof of lawful acquisition of the seized goods.