1999 (5) TMI 121 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Seizure of silk yarn by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at Varanasi
- Allegation of unauthorized import without license
- Confiscation of silk and penalty under Section 112
- Dispute regarding the origin and clearance of the seized goods
- Evaluation of evidence and arguments presented by all parties
- Analysis of Collector's reasons for not accepting the claim of appellants
- Examination of pricing, markings, and invoicing of the seized goods
- Relevance of test results by Central Silk Board
- Conclusion on confiscation and penalty imposition

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the seizure of silk yarn by the DRI at Varanasi and subsequent legal proceedings. The DRI seized 40 bales of silk yarn from the premises of a transport company, leading to allegations of unauthorized import without a license. The Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation of the silk and imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Act. The appellants contested these actions, arguing that the seized goods were part of a consignment imported and cleared at Bombay. The primary issue was the Collector's refusal to accept this claim, which the appellants found unjustifiable. The appellants presented evidence such as markings on the bales, statements, and correspondence to support their position.

The Collector's reasoning for rejecting the claim was scrutinized by the appellate tribunal. The Collector cited discrepancies in pricing, absence of markings on bales, and invoicing irregularities. However, the tribunal found explanations for these discrepancies reasonable. For instance, the lower sale price compared to the ex-bond bill of entry was attributed to duty exemptions under the passbook scheme. The tribunal also noted markings on some bales and clarified invoicing oversights. The absence of certain records at Varanasi was deemed insignificant, and suspicions raised by the Collector were dismissed as not directly related to the issue of unauthorized import.

Regarding the test results by the Central Silk Board indicating the seized goods as mulberry raw silk yarn, the tribunal deemed it unnecessary to address this matter. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the seized goods were not liable for confiscation, leading to the allowance of all appeals. The impugned order was set aside, and no penalties were imposed. The decision was based on the tribunal's assessment of the evidence presented and the Collector's reasoning, ultimately favoring the appellants' claims of the goods being part of a legitimate consignment.