9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Confiscation of imported goods under the Customs Act, burden of proof on the appellant, legality of absolute confiscation without evidence of smuggling.
Analysis: 1. Confiscation of Goods: The Commissioner of Customs ordered the absolute confiscation of Mobile/Cellular Phones and other items valued at Rs. 1,80,000 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods, being of foreign origin, were found in possession of the appellant without necessary documents, leading the authorities to suspect illegal importation. A show-cause notice was issued, and the appellant contested the value of the goods but denied any involvement in smuggling, requesting their release. Despite a personal hearing where the appellant's brother admitted to the goods being smuggled, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation and imposed a penalty. 2. Burden of Proof: The appellant argued that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on him by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant claimed ownership of the seized goods, except for one item, and contended that the goods were not in commercial quantity, thus absolute confiscation was not justified under the Customs Act. The appellant's advocate referenced a previous tribunal order where confiscation and penalties were set aside in a similar case, emphasizing that without evidence of smuggling, the goods should be released, especially since Cellular Phones were allowed for import under the Exim Policy. 3. Legal Considerations: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, noted that absolute confiscation is not legal when goods are neither prohibited nor notified. Citing previous decisions, including the one referenced by the appellant's advocate, the Tribunal held that without positive evidence of smuggling or contraband nature of the goods, confiscation could not be upheld. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief to the appellant. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata revolved around the confiscation of imported goods, the burden of proof on the appellant, and the legality of absolute confiscation without evidence of smuggling. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation order due to the lack of evidence establishing the smuggled nature of the goods, thereby providing consequential relief to the appellant.
|
