Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 861

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... half years had elapsed. These goods were in the custody of the Customs. They had an obligation to explain how the goods were or became unfit for human consumption. If the goods at the time of seizure were unfit for human consumption, they could not have been valued at ₹88 lakhs at that point of time. Therefore, this condition was reached in the custody of the Customs. Whether such deterioration was natural or due to some action or inaction on the part of the Customs had to be explained by the Customs authorities. The onus of proof was upon them. They have not been able to discharge it. Even if the reports of the expert agencies like food analyst and the specialised laboratory made between December, 2017 and March, 2018 suggested that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... el nuts from the respondent on 29th October, 2017 on the ground that they were illegally imported and liable to be confiscated and penal action under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. This order of confiscation was challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal constituted by the said Act (CESTAT). It ordered release of the goods. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the High Court which affirmed the order of the Tribunal. The appellant went up to the Supreme Court which did not interfere with this order. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by that court on 31st October, 2022. Throughout this period from the seizure to the order of the Supreme Court on 31st October, 2022, with the orders of CESTAT and this Court interven .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The Customs is before us on appeal. Before proceeding further with this matter, a few facts are very relevant and need to be remunerated and re-examined. The respondent claimed the betel nuts to be an indigenous product of Mizoram. The appellant claimed they were illegally imported. A large consignment of these betel nuts were seized by the Customs on 29th October, 2017. After seizure and more particularly on 14th November, 2017, 4th January, 2018 and 15th January, 2018 by representations, the respondent sought provisional release of the seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. They were not released by the appellant. On 27th April, 2018, a show cause notice was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) NER, Shillong on 11th February, 2019 on the following terms. The food analyst's report of the Government of Assam dated 11th December, 2017 and 28th March, 2018 accompanied by the laboratory test report dated 20th November, 2017 and 6th March, 2018 stated that the goods were "damaged having fungal infestation and hence were not suitable for use of human consumption". Permission was sought to destroy the consignment of betel nuts by dumping them in a huge pit within the office area of the Customs in Guwahati or by fresh air waste management services. On 18th February, 2019, the Superintendent (Hqrs. Disposal), Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NER, Shillong wrote to the Assistant C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... toms authorities. The onus of proof was upon them. They have not been able to discharge it. Even if the reports of the expert agencies like food analyst and the specialised laboratory made between December, 2017 and March, 2018 suggested that the goods were unfit for human consumption, still the respondent ought to have been given a chance to be present when the test was carried out or to be provided with a copy of the report to seek second opinion or to take some steps with regard to it. Most importantly, before destroying the goods, the respondent ought to have been informed. Now, that the Supreme Court has not interfered with the order for release of the goods, the appellant has saddled itself with liability for having disposed of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates