9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of computer parts suspected to be smuggled. 2. Allegations against the appellant regarding financing import of goods. 3. Confiscation and penalty imposed on the importer and others. Analysis: 1. The Customs Officers seized computer parts valued at Rs. 40 lakhs from a consignment arriving from Singapore. The consignment was addressed to a firm at Khar, Bombay. Investigations revealed the premises were leased to various individuals, including the appellant, who operated a shop named M/s. Green Channel. Statements of involved parties were recorded. 2. The appellant denied any knowledge or involvement in the seized goods during his statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Allegations surfaced that the appellant, along with others, financed the import of goods through a partnership firm. However, no direct evidence linked the appellant to the confiscated goods. The tribunal found the evidence insufficient to establish the appellant's liability for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 3. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation and penalties, which were imposed by the adjudicating authority. The tribunal noted that the only evidence against the appellant was the panchnama, which did not hold legal weight. Additionally, none of the co-noticees implicated the appellant. As the burden of proof was not met by the department to establish the appellant's connection to the confiscated goods, the tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. This judgment highlights the importance of substantial evidence to establish liability in customs cases and emphasizes the burden of proof on the department to link individuals to alleged offenses for penalties to be imposed under the Customs Act.
|
