2002 (2) TMI 960 - AT - Customs

Customs Act penalties overturned due to lack of evidence, Appellants' burden of proof not shifted

GOEL BEARING CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The penalties imposed on the Appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the confiscation of ball bearings of foreign origin were set ... Smuggled goods - Non notified goods Issues:Penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on all the Appellants based on the confiscation of ball bearings of foreign origin.Analysis:The case involved four appeals arising from a common Adjudication Order where penalties were imposed on the Appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Officers seized ball bearings of foreign origin from a godown, leading to penalties being imposed on the Appellants. The Adjudicating Authority held that the ball bearings were smuggled into India as Sansar Gupta, one of the Appellants, could not produce any duty paid documents or proof of legal import. The Authority also emphasized Sansar Gupta's awareness of the nature of the goods and his dealings with Ram Niwas, who supplied the ball bearings.The Appellants argued that the impugned goods did not belong to them, and no evidence was presented by the Revenue to prove that the goods were smuggled. They contended that the burden of proof lay with the Department to establish the smuggled nature of the goods, especially since ball bearings were not prohibited items and were covered under the Open General License. The Appellants highlighted the lack of evidence linking them to the seized goods, apart from Sansar Gupta's retracted statement, and emphasized the need for independent evidence to impose penalties.In the judgment, it was noted that the Revenue's case relied heavily on Sansar Gupta's statement and the absence of documentation proving legal import. However, the Tribunal found that Sansar Gupta's statement alone was insufficient to establish that the ball bearings were smuggled. Ram Niwas, in his statement, denied supplying smuggled ball bearings to Sansar Gupta, further weakening the Revenue's case. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion regarding ownership or acquisition of goods does not automatically indicate smuggling. Previous decisions were cited to support the view that the foreign origin of goods, without additional evidence, does not prove smuggling.The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to prove the smuggled nature of the ball bearings, as required under the Customs Act. It was held that the burden of proof had not shifted to the Appellants, and therefore, no penalties could be imposed on them. The penalties imposed on all the Appellants were set aside based on the lack of evidence establishing the goods as smuggled, as per the legal precedents cited.