1999 (11) TMI 241 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Absolute confiscation of seized Crystal Glasswares of foreign origin.
2. Imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on the appellant.

Issue 1: Absolute Confiscation of Seized Crystal Glasswares of Foreign Origin

The appellant, represented by Shri P.K. Sengupta, contended that the Crystal Glasswares seized were part of the stock-in-trade as the appellant was a crockery shop-owner. It was argued that the goods were duty-paid, even though the appellant could not produce documents to prove it. The appellant emphasized that the goods were not notified under the Customs Act or Chapter IV-A, shifting the burden to prove smuggling onto the Department. The appellant also highlighted that the goods were of assorted origins, some lacking country marks, and were acquired from various sources, not as a single consignment. The Commissioner's decision was criticized for being based on doubt and suspicion, lacking concrete evidence of illegal importation.

Issue 2: Imposition of Personal Penalty

Shri R.K. Roy, representing the Revenue, argued that as the appellant failed to provide documentation for the legal acquisition of the Glasswares, the confiscation was justified. While acknowledging that the items were not listed under Section 123 of the Act, Roy asserted that the burden of proving smuggling shifted to the appellant upon the seizure of foreign goods. He pointed out that some cartons bore stickers indicating goods meant for Nepal but diverted to India, supporting the suspicion of smuggling.

Detailed Analysis:
The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and noted that the goods were non-notified items allowed for import under Open General License (OGL). Despite the lack of documentation from the appellant, the Tribunal found no concrete evidence presented by the Revenue to prove unlawful importation. The adjudicating authority's decision to confiscate the goods due to the absence of proof of legal possession was deemed insufficient. The presence of stickers on cartons, while raising suspicion, was not deemed as conclusive evidence of illegal importation. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of positive and affirmative proof of smuggling, leading to the setting aside of the impugned Order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in cases of confiscation and the burden of proof on the Department to establish illegal importation in the absence of clear documentation from the appellant. The decision underscores the necessity of meeting legal standards and providing substantial proof before confiscating goods or imposing penalties in customs cases.