2003 (1) TMI 577 - AT - Customs

Appellate tribunal overturns confiscation order in Silk Yarn customs case due to lack of evidence

MUCHIPARA CONSUMERS’ CO-OP. STORES LTD. Versus CC., BANGALORE

The appellate tribunal set aside the order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties in a case involving illegal importation of Silk Yarn without ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Smuggling - Raw silk - Non-notified item Issues:1. Illegal importation of Silk Yarn without payment of Customs Duty.2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.3. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalties.Issue 1: Illegal importation of Silk Yarn without payment of Customs DutyThe case involves the discovery of 27 bales of Raw Silk Yarn of foreign origin stored at a premises in Bangalore without payment of Customs Duty. The goods were transported by a company on behalf of another, and various documents were produced as evidence. The authorities issued a show cause notice and eventually ordered the confiscation of the goods, along with the appropriation of sale proceeds and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.Issue 2: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penaltiesThe Additional Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the goods and appropriated the sale proceeds under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Additionally, personal penalties were imposed on the involved companies under Section 112(a) of the Act. In the appeal filed by one of the companies, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, directing the goods to be released on redemption fine and reducing the penalty amount.Issue 3: Appeal against the order of confiscation and penaltiesThe appellant company challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on various findings. The Commissioner had concluded that the goods were illegally imported and not those bought from a specific source. However, after a detailed examination of the transport documents and discrepancies found in the investigation, it was revealed that the lower authorities had inaccuracies in their findings. The appellate tribunal found that the onus of proving illegal importation and non-duty payment was on the Revenue Department, which they failed to establish satisfactorily. As a result, the order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant company.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to illegal importation, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties, along with the subsequent appeal and the final decision of the appellate tribunal.