2023 (6) TMI 959 - AT - Customs

Absolute Confiscation - smuggling - betel nuts - goods smuggled into India from Bangladesh through unauthorized route in violation of section 7(1)(c) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(1) of Import/Export (Control) Act, 1947 as amended and Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962 - penalty. HELD THAT - In this case there was a reasonable belief that the betel nuts in question is smuggled one, but no evidence has been brought by the Revenue to support the said allegation as onus to prove the goods in question are smuggled one lies on the Revenue as the goods in question are not notified goods in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Merely alleging that the goods in question are smuggled one on reasonable belief is not sufficient. As the Revenue has failed to prove with cogent evidence that the goods in question are smuggled one, in that circumstances, it is held that the goods are not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the Appellant. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are absolute confiscation of betel nuts and imposition of penalty on the Appellant based on allegations of smuggling.

Details of the judgment:

Absolute Confiscation of Betel Nuts:
The case involved the interception of a truck loaded with betel nuts believed to be of foreign origin. The Customs officers seized the truck and betel nuts as nobody claimed ownership. A seizure case was booked under the Customs Act, 1962, alleging smuggling from Bangladesh through an unauthorized route. However, the Revenue failed to provide evidence supporting the allegation of smuggling. The Tribunal held that without concrete evidence, the goods cannot be deemed smuggled, especially since they were not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the goods.

Imposition of Penalty:
The Appellant was also facing a penalty for the alleged smuggling of betel nuts. Despite the reasonable belief of smuggling, the Revenue could not substantiate the claim with sufficient evidence. As the onus to prove the goods were smuggled lies with the Revenue, the Tribunal ruled that without concrete proof, no penalty could be imposed on the Appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the Appellant.

Conclusion:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved the absolute confiscation of betel nuts and imposition of penalty on the Appellant based on allegations of smuggling. However, due to the lack of concrete evidence supporting the smuggling claims, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the goods and ruled that no penalty could be imposed on the Appellant.