9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the seizure of ball bearings of Polish origin, alleged smuggling, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, reliance on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, retraction of statements, affidavit submitted by a broker, and the burden of proof on the Revenue. Seizure of Ball Bearings and Alleged Smuggling: The appellant was present during a search where 9,029 pieces of ball bearings of Polish origin were recovered from his godown. The appellant admitted to purchasing these ball bearings from a person who brought them from Nepal, knowing that bringing foreign-origin ball bearings into India was illegal. The appellant failed to produce any legal documents for the import/possession of the ball bearings, leading to their seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Statements and Retraction: Statements of the appellant were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, where he detailed the purchase and sale of the ball bearings. The appellant later retracted these statements, claiming they were made under coercion. The lower appellate authority considered the retraction statement as voluntary, leading to reliance on the initial statements for adjudication. Confiscation and Penalty Imposition: The Revenue alleged that the appellant was engaged in dealing with smuggled ball bearings knowingly, leading to the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 112(b). The adjudicating authority relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support the confiscation and penalty imposition. Affidavit and Lack of Evidence: The appellant submitted an affidavit from a broker to support his case, but the lower authorities dismissed it as an afterthought. The appellate tribunal found that the authorities failed to conduct a proper enquiry into the affidavit's contents. The tribunal observed an utter lack of corroborative evidence to prove the smuggled character of the goods, leading to the reversal of the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Conclusion: The appellate tribunal set aside the order, finding that the goods being of foreign origin did not automatically imply smuggling, especially when freely importable by actual users. The tribunal criticized the lower authorities for disregarding the affidavit without proper enquiry and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish smuggling. Consequently, the confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed on the appellant were revoked, providing consequential relief to the appellant.
|
