2001 (5) TMI 570 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Confiscation of silver, imposition of penalty, proof of foreign origin, authority to seize, applicability of Board's Circular, burden of proof, independent evidence, symbol seal.

Confiscation of Silver and Imposition of Penalty:
The judgment revolves around the confiscation of 11.425 kgs of silver valued at Rs. 77,690 and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the appellant. The silver was found in possession of an individual who denied ownership, attributing it to the appellant. The appellant later claimed ownership, stating that the silver was melted from contributions by various individuals and bore his symbol seal. The appellate authority set aside the confiscation and penalty, citing lack of evidence on foreign origin and reliance on hearsay statements.

Proof of Foreign Origin and Authority to Seize:
The appellant argued that the silver, being of indigenous origin and lacking foreign markings, should not have been confiscated. Reference was made to a tribunal decision stating that silver under 100 kgs without foreign markings seized by an officer below the rank of Assistant Commissioner contravened the Board's Circular. The judgment highlighted the necessity for the Revenue to prove foreign origin, emphasizing the absence of independent evidence and the reliance on hearsay statements.

Applicability of Board's Circular and Burden of Proof:
The appellant contended that the silver's weight being less than 100 kgs required seizure by an Assistant Commissioner as per the Board's Circular. Furthermore, it was argued that the burden of proving lawful possession did not rest on the appellant, despite silver being under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The judgment referenced various tribunal decisions to support the appellant's position and emphasized the need for the Revenue to establish foreign origin conclusively.

Independent Evidence and Symbol Seal:
The judgment scrutinized the lack of independent evidence regarding the silver's foreign origin, contrasting it with the appellant's claim of the silver bearing their symbol seal. It highlighted the insufficiency of hearsay statements in proving foreign origin and echoed tribunal decisions setting aside confiscations where foreign markings were absent. Ultimately, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant based on the absence of substantial evidence supporting the confiscation and penalty.