9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 66 - HC - CustomsSeizure of goods - Betel Nuts - origin of goods - foreign origin or not - it was alleged that consignee of the goods is a non-existent entity having not found on the given address. HELD THAT - The questions of law raised by the appellant herein has already been answered by this Court in the case of CUSTOMS, (PREVENTIVE) KENDRIA BHAWAN SECT-H VERSUS M/S MAA GAURI TRADERS, PROP. SHYAMAL BISWAS COLLEGE PARA 2019 (8) TMI 1043 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where The report of the ARDF has also been held to be not reliable in as much as it could not be shown with any degree of certainty that the origin of the betel nuts could be established by testing in a laboratory, as is clear by the answer to the RTI query given by Directorate of Arecanut And Spice Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of Kerala. We cannot take different view than already expressed by the coordinate bench of this Court. It is otherwise required to maintain judicial discipline - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Whether the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad correctly upheld the order ignoring findings regarding the origin of seized Betel Nuts and the consignee's existence? 2. Whether the final order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad contradicts the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a specific case? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The case involves a custom appeal regarding the origin of betel nuts seized during a truck interception. The appellant argued that the betel nuts were of foreign origin based on a report from Arecanut Research & Development Foundation, Mangalore. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT found discrepancies in the evidence presented. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the onus was on the Revenue to prove improper importation, and as betel nuts were not notified under the Customs Act, the confiscation order was not justified. The CESTAT concurred, stating that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue, and the report from ARDF was merely an opinion, not conclusive proof of origin. The CESTAT rejected the appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence of smuggling. Issue 2: The appellant contended that the CESTAT erred by not relying on the report from ARDF, which indicated foreign origin of the betel nuts. The appellant cited the judgment of Collector of Customs Vs. D. Bhoormull to argue that the Revenue only needed to establish a degree of probability, not absolute certainty. However, the Court emphasized that the issue of betel nuts' origin was a question of fact. Referring to previous Supreme Court decisions, the Court highlighted that interference in findings of fact was permissible in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, stating that the Revenue failed to prove foreign origin conclusively. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the questions of law raised had already been addressed in a previous case. The judgment delivered by the Court in the aforementioned case was to govern the present appeal. Additionally, a clarification was made regarding the mention of the Government of Kerala in the judgment, correcting it to the Government of India.
|
