2006 (5) TMI 39 - HC - Customs

Customs Confiscation and penalty Revenue made claim that seized goods are smuggled one without payment of duty Seized goods are also non-notified in terms of Sec 123 of Customs Act, 1962 Revenue is unable to prove the facts of smuggled goods of foreign origin Tribunal committed no error in setting aside order of confiscation and penalty

Summary

Issues involved:
Application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal regarding the confiscation of metal scraps and trucks, imposition of redemption fines, and personal penalties.

Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Metal Scraps and Trucks:
The case involved the interception and seizure of metal scraps of foreign origin in three separate incidents. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) ordered the confiscation of the metal scraps and trucks, along with the imposition of redemption fines and personal penalties on the individuals involved. The respondents contended that the metal scraps were purchased legitimately and not smuggled goods. However, the Commissioner upheld the confiscation and penalties.

2. Appeals before the Tribunal:
The respondents appealed the Commissioner's decision before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, stating that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the respondents, especially since the item in question was non-notified. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of independent corroborative evidence presented by the Revenue.

3. Reference Application to High Court:
The Revenue filed a reference application challenging the Tribunal's decision. The counsel for the Revenue argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the discharge of the burden of proof by the Revenue and the significance of statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in not giving weight to the retracted statements made by the respondents.

4. High Court Judgment:
After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the High Court found that the metal scraps were non-notified items and lacked foreign marks. The Court noted that the Revenue failed to establish the foreign origin of the goods or any smuggling activity. The Court emphasized that the statements under Section 108 must be voluntary and supported by summons. Since the Revenue could not prove the foreign origin of the goods, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the confiscation and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.

5. Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the reference application, stating that the Tribunal did not commit any legal errors in its decision. The Court highlighted that the initial burden of proving the goods as smuggled foreign items was not met by the Revenue. The judgment was delivered unanimously, with no costs awarded in the case.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of confiscation, appeals, burden of proof, statements under Section 108, and the final judgment of the High Court, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and outcomes in the case.