9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the department. There is not even a reference or narration as to how and where from the impugned goods are smuggled. The Tribunal in the case of SMT. LALTANPUII VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) , NER, SHILLONG [ 2020 (12) TMI 377 - CESTAT KOLKATA] and in the case of DHARMENDRA KR. JHA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (P) , PATNA [ 2015 (11) TMI 1639 - CESTAT KOLKATA] held that betel nut being a non-notified commodity under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the onus is on the department that seized goods were in fact smuggled into India, but the department has not discharged its burden. The same ratio applies to the case in hand. The betel nut being non-notified goods; burden to prove the fact of smuggling lies on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods. He had purchased the goods form a loaded truck at Kawlbem. Seized goods were provisionally released on Security Deposit of Rs.13,05,767.00, Bank guarantee for Rs.18,72,687.00 and on execution of Bond for Rs.28,72,687.00. 2. Ld.Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods on the ground that the owner/driver could not produce the documents in support of the goods and that Mizoram has no or very less production of Betel nut. Appellant contested the ground of confiscation inter alia that Para 23 of the impugned order would show that the Appellant had submitted the documents in support of the goods. In view of the GSTIN documents submitted in support of the goods, which were system generated, there could not be no chance of man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 5. The Tribunal in the case of Customs Appeal No.77344 of 2019 Smt. Laltanpui vide Final Order No.75659/2020 dated 09.12.2020 and in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Jha [2016 (344) ELT 264 (Tri.-Kol)] held that betel nut being a non-notified commodity under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the onus is on the department that seized goods were in fact smuggled into India, but the department has not discharged its burden. The same ratio applies to the case in hand. 6. In view of the above, I find that the betel nut being non-notified goods; burden to prove the fact of smuggling lies on the department and the same has not been discharged. In view of the above discussions, seizure of impugned betel nut is not justified and needs t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
