1995 (9) TMI 136 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods under Customs Act, 1962
2. Imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962
3. Allegations of smuggling against the appellants
4. Proceedings initiated against the appellants
5. Non-appearance of the accused during proceedings
6. Justification of impugned order by the Revenue
7. Evidence presented by both sides
8. Consideration of financial hardship for waiver of pre-deposit

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three stay petitions arising from an order-in-original by the Collector of Customs, Lucknow, involving the absolute confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs. 22,40,500 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the same Act. The allegations against the appellants revolve around the recovery of foreign-origin goods from the residence of one appellant, implicating all three in smuggling activities. However, discrepancies arise regarding the ownership of the house where the goods were seized, as claimed by one appellant and refuted by the other. The appellants were not available during proceedings, leading to the issuance of summonses and show cause notices. The Collector proceeded with adjudication in their absence, resulting in the impugned orders.

During the hearing, both sides presented arguments regarding the foreign origin of the seized goods, the involvement of the appellants in smuggling, and their financial circumstances. The appellants denied involvement and provided evidence of their permanent residence and employment in Bombay. The department failed to provide substantial proof of the goods being of foreign origin or bearing foreign markings. The appellants highlighted their strong prima facie case on merits, supported by evidence of their permanent residence and employment, challenging the department's reliance on a statement made by one of the appellants.

Considering the submissions and evidence presented, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' case, especially regarding the lack of conclusive evidence of smuggling and the financial hardships they claimed. The Tribunal, therefore, decided to waive the pre-deposit and grant an unconditional stay on the recovery pending the appeal's disposal. The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing allegations and the need for a thorough investigation before implicating individuals in smuggling activities.