1991 (12) TMI 156 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of air-conditioners of foreign origin and penalty imposition.
2. Lack of evidence of lawful import/possession/purchase/acquisition of the air-conditioners.
3. Burden of proof on the appellant regarding the duty-paid nature of the goods.
4. Delay in passing the order of confiscation.
5. Contradictory statements made by the appellant about the goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of air-conditioners and penalty imposition
The case involved the confiscation of nine air-conditioners of foreign origin and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the appellant. The Customs Officer seized the air-conditioners under Section 110 of the Customs Act due to a lack of documents proving lawful import or possession. The appellant's defense included purchasing the air-conditioners for resale without proper documentation.

Issue 2: Lack of evidence of lawful import/possession
The appellant failed to provide documents proving the lawful import or acquisition of the air-conditioners. Although some documents were submitted later, the authenticity and timing of these documents were questioned by the authorities. The appellant's explanations regarding the source of the air-conditioners and the auction from which they were purchased were deemed insufficient.

Issue 3: Burden of proof on the appellant
The burden of proving that the air-conditioners were not smuggled fell on the appellant due to his advertisement for the sale of customs-paid goods. The appellant's failure to provide adequate evidence of lawful acquisition, despite advertising the air-conditioners as duty-paid, led to the confiscation and penalty imposition.

Issue 4: Delay in passing the order
There was a complaint about the delay in passing the order of confiscation, which took more than four years. However, this delay did not impact the decision regarding the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant.

Issue 5: Contradictory statements by the appellant
The appellant made contradictory statements regarding the source and legality of the air-conditioners, initially claiming they were purchased from the Sunday Market and later providing different explanations. The Tribunal found these contradictions unacceptable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the confiscation and penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the air-conditioners and the penalty imposed on the appellant due to the lack of evidence of lawful acquisition, the burden of proof on the appellant, and the contradictory statements made during the proceedings. The delay in passing the order did not affect the decision, and the appellant's conduct in offering duty-paid goods for sale without proper documentation further supported the Tribunal's ruling.