2012 (12) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Smuggled goods confiscation and penalty Held that - In case of non-notified goods u/s. 123 of Customs Act, the onus to prove that they have illegally entered the country lies very heavily upon the Revenue - same has to be discharged by production of tangible and positive evidence by the Revenue - goods after import become the part of the stock of identical goods already available in the country. Failure on the part of the person possessing such goods to establish that the same were legally imported cannot lead to ipso facto conclusion that the same were smuggled - imposition of penalty upon the appellants were not justified

Summary

Issues:
Illegal import of Chinese velvet bedsheets, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, evidence produced by the parties, onus of proof on Revenue, non-notified goods under Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involved the illegal import of Chinese velvet bedsheets leading to the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 41,32,500 and the imposition of penalties on the individuals involved. The Preventive Customs officers seized 191 bundles of Chinese origin bedsheets from the godown premises, suspecting them to be smuggled. Statements from the business partners revealed the involvement of a businessman from Nepal in the import process. The appellants submitted bills of entries and other documents related to the transportation and sale of goods, but discrepancies were found during inquiries.

The original adjudicating authority based its findings on the mismatch between the seized goods (velvet) and the bill of entry (polyester knitted bedsheets), concluding illegal import. However, the appellate tribunal noted that the goods were non-notified items under the Customs Act, and the onus of proving illegal entry rested heavily on the Revenue. Citing established legal principles and precedents, the tribunal emphasized the need for tangible evidence from the Revenue to establish smuggling of non-notified goods. The absence of such evidence led to the tribunal setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellants.

The tribunal highlighted that without concrete evidence of illegal import, especially concerning non-notified goods like the velvet bedsheets, confiscation and penalty imposition were unjustified. By emphasizing the importance of proof in cases involving non-notified items, the tribunal overturned the decision based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of smuggling. The judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent burden of proof on Revenue in cases involving non-notified goods under the Customs Act, ultimately resulting in the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellants.