2020 (2) TMI 1210 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - betel Nuts - Confiscation on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the same were not purchased from the local market and were of foreign origin - non-notified items or not - Section 123 of the Customs Act - Onus to prove smuggled nature of goods - validity of report given by Arecanut Research Development Foundation, Mangalore, where it was held that the goods were of Burma origin cannot be relied upon inasmuch as under an RTI quarry, the Director of the said Arecanut Research Development Foundation, Mangalore has informed that it is not possible to determine the place of origin of betel nuts through a test in the lab. HELD THAT - Reliance can be placed in the cases of Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Lucknow V/s M/s Bramhaputra Cargo Carriers Private Ltd. 2019 (6) TMI 1442 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Lucknow V/s Harship Garg, Prop. Harshit Enterprises 2019 (9) TMI 129 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD where identical report of M/s Arecanut Research Development Foundation, Mangalore was considered and it was held as not applicable. It was further held that in the absence of any evidence of smuggling of goods their confiscation cannot be appreciated. There are no merits in the Revenue's case - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against order setting aside confiscation of betel nuts based on country of origin and lack of evidence of smuggling.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of betel nuts. The Commissioner had set aside the confiscation, stating that there was no evidence to prove the betel nuts were of foreign origin and not purchased from the local market. The Commissioner also questioned the reliability of a report from the Arecanut Research & Development Foundation, Mangalore, regarding the country of origin of the goods. The Commissioner emphasized that the onus is on the Department to prove that the goods are smuggled, especially since betel nuts are non-notified items under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner's decision was supported by various Tribunal decisions upheld by High Courts.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to similar appeals previously considered, where the report from the Arecanut Research & Development Foundation, Mangalore, was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized that without evidence of smuggling, the confiscation of goods cannot be justified. Therefore, based on the previous decision and lack of evidence of smuggling, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's case and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence to prove smuggling in cases involving the confiscation of goods. It also underscores the significance of considering previous decisions and legal principles in determining the outcome of appeals related to customs matters.