9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the seized goods and imposition of penalty. 2. After giving details as to how 62 pieces of mobiles and 38 pieces of earphones of foreign origin were first recovered near Patna from one Chandresh Chopra on 12.12.2002 while he was traveling from Chennai and how on his disclosure, further 62 pieces of mobiles of foreign origin were recovered from the residential premises of Shri Manish Kakrania and their failure to produce any document regarding valid acquisition of the goods leading to seizure, the Tribunal has noted that the goods were not notified goods either under Chapter 4 (a) or under Section 123 of the Customs Act and hence, the burden was on the Revenue to prove that those goods were smuggled goods. 3. The Tribunal found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There is no quarrel with such general proposition of law. The Court has further observed that if the goods are dutiable and have not suffered customs duty, the burden of proving that the goods have suffered duty is on the person from whom it is sought to be seized by the Department. Clearly, this pre-supposes that as a fact the Customs authorities have found by some evidence that the goods are dutiable and have not suffered customs duty. In such eventuality, as per that judgment the departmental authorities are not required to prove with mathematical precision that the goods are smuggled. That judgment, in our view, does not lay down a different law than what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessor does not have knowledge or documents to show how and who paid the duty for importation of such goods. No doubt, confiscation is a proceeding in rem against the goods but it also leads to deprivation of ownership over the goods and may also create liability for penalties. This cannot be permitted in a case of no evidence to show that the goods were of smuggled nature. A simple illustration may prove the point. Goods identified to be stolen goods when recovered soon after the occurrence of theft may create circumstantial evidence against the person in possession that he had a hand in the theft but the same principle cannot hold good when such goods may have passed several hands and are recovered after a lapse of considerable time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
