1992 (1) TMI 228 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of garments by Customs authorities.
2. Burden of proof on Department to establish goods as smuggled.
3. Reliability of evidence obtained without informing the appellant.
4. Application for additional evidence regarding auctioned goods.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Customs confirming the confiscation of garments seized at Calcutta Airport. The appellant claimed the goods were sent by a consignor from Agartala and produced documents supporting this claim. The appellant argued that the show cause notice did not mention personal examination of the consignor, which was later used as evidence against him. The appellant contended that the Department failed to prove the garments were smuggled as they were not notified items. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support his arguments.

2. The Department argued that the appellant's explanation was an afterthought and that the burden of proof had shifted to the appellant. They claimed that the goods were not bona fide purchased and relied on the denial of the consignor to establish the goods as smuggled. The Department also contested the submission of additional evidence, stating it was not produced before the lower authorities.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and analyzed the legal precedents cited. It was noted that the burden of proof lay with the Department, especially since the goods were not notified items. The Tribunal found that evidence obtained without informing the appellant and not mentioned in the show cause notice could not be relied upon. As the Department failed to discharge its burden of proving the goods as smuggled, the appeal was allowed, and the confiscation of goods and penalty were set aside.

4. The Tribunal also addressed the application for additional evidence, allowing it as it aimed to strengthen the appellant's case by showing that similar garments were auctioned by Customs and available in the open market. The Tribunal ordered the return of the goods to the appellant and set aside the penalty imposed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the Department's failure to prove the garments as smuggled and the importance of following due process in obtaining and presenting evidence in such cases.