2001 (4) TMI 571 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods of foreign origin by Customs authorities.
2. Burden of proof on the appellant under Sec. 123 of the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of Sec. 123 in the case of goods seized by Police.
4. Invocation of Sec. 123 without being mentioned in the show cause notice.
5. Analysis of relevant case laws supporting the appellant's arguments.
6. Examination of the peculiar findings regarding violation of the Foreign Trade Act.
7. Lack of efforts by the Department to locate relevant persons in the case.
8. Assessment of the nature of goods and the incorrect invocation of Sec. 123.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the decision confirming the confiscation of goods of foreign origin by the Customs authorities, including a Color T.V. set, a C.D. Deck Stereo Cassette Receiver, an Air-Conditioner Machine, a Wrist Watch, a Micro Cassettes Tape Recorder, and a gold chain with a pendant. The penalty imposed was also challenged.

2. The appellant, a Senior Inspector of Police, was subjected to an inquiry after the Police seized the goods, leading to the Customs issuing a show cause notice. The burden of proof under Sec. 123 of the Customs Act was held to be on the appellant, who failed to prove the innocence regarding the confiscated goods.

3. The appellant argued against the applicability of Sec. 123 in a case where goods were seized by the Police before being handed over to Customs, emphasizing that deprivation of proprietary rights must occur for Sec. 123 to be invoked.

4. The invocation of Sec. 123 without being mentioned in the show cause notice was deemed incorrect, as it went beyond the scope of the initial notice, leading to a challenge by the appellant.

5. The judgment referenced relevant case laws, such as Jatin Mehta v. CC, Mumbai and Kishore Vrajlal Vithalani v. CC(P), Mumbai, to support the appellant's contentions regarding the dubious origin of goods and the burden of proof on the Department.

6. Peculiar findings regarding the violation of the Foreign Trade Act were questioned for lacking specific details on the violation, raising doubts about the basis for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.

7. Criticism was directed at the Department for not making sufficient efforts to locate individuals associated with the goods, as observed in a related case, indicating a lapse in the investigative process.

8. The judgment concluded that the invocation of Sec. 123 was incorrect given the circumstances of the case, where the goods were consumer items personally used by the appellant, leading to the setting aside of the lower authorities' orders.