2013 (3) TMI 118 - SC - Customs

Non payment of duty - goods imported meant for Nepal and after clearance at the Calcutta Port without payment of duty have been diverted to Mumbai for sale in the local market - Held that - The counter affidavit/reply filed by the appellant herein (respondent No. 2 before the High Court) has not been placed on record with the Appeal. The High Court in the impugned order has not accepted the bill of entry tendered by the appellant herein in proof of payment of duty and has also commented upon his conduct. There is no dispute that the subject goods are dutiable. The fate of this Appeal depends on answer to the question whether duty has been paid on the subject goods or not.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Sections 111(d) and 111(k) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Determination of liability for confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Assessment of evidence regarding the payment of duty on imported goods.
4. Evaluation of the Tribunal's decision and its acceptance by the High Court in a Writ Petition.

Analysis:
1. The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Sections 111(d) and 111(k) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) acknowledged the absence of evidence supporting the illegal importation of goods without duty payment, leading to the conclusion that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(k) of the Act. This interpretation formed the basis for subsequent decisions.

2. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's finding, emphasizing that since the goods were not 'prohibited goods,' Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish illegal importation, resulting in the appellant's appeal being allowed on 25.5.2001. The Revenue challenged this decision before the High Court through a Writ Petition.

3. The High Court, in its order, scrutinized the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the bill of entry tendered by the appellant as proof of duty payment. However, the Court did not accept the bill of entry and raised concerns about the appellant's conduct. The crucial question determining the appeal's outcome was whether duty had indeed been paid on the subject goods, highlighting the significance of proper documentation and compliance with customs regulations.

4. The fate of the appeal hinged on the assessment of duty payment on the goods, underscoring the importance of adherence to customs procedures and the legal requirements for importing goods. The Tribunal's decision, endorsed by the High Court, was subject to rigorous scrutiny regarding the evidence of duty payment, reflecting the meticulous examination of facts and legal provisions in customs matters. The judgment underscores the critical role of evidence and compliance in customs cases, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to statutory provisions for successful resolution of disputes.