2003 (12) TMI 398 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns betel nut confiscation due to lack of proof, orders return to appellant

The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of betel nuts seized from Railways as the revenue failed to prove foreign origin and smuggled character. The ... Seizure - Non-notified goods - Ownership of goods Issues involved: Examination of claims regarding betel nuts seized from Railways, determination of foreign origin and smuggled character of the betel nuts, ownership of the goods, and compliance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.Examination of foreign origin and smuggled character of betel nuts:The Commissioner passed the impugned order after multiple remands to examine the appellant's claims regarding the betel nuts seized from the Railways. The Commissioner relied on the opinion of the DRI to determine the foreign origin and smuggled nature of the betel nuts. However, the Tribunal noted that betel nuts are abundantly grown in certain regions of the country and the DRI's visual examination alone cannot establish foreign origin. Since betel nuts are not notified items under the Customs Act, the onus to prove smuggling lies with the revenue. The circumstantial evidence provided by the revenue was deemed insufficient to establish foreign origin and smuggled character, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation.Ownership of the goods:The appellant claimed ownership of the goods in a letter to Customs Authorities, which was not accepted by the adjudicating authority due to doubts regarding the manner in which commercial goods were booked in passenger trains. The authority questioned the delay in claiming ownership and the lack of supporting documents. Despite the appellant's possession of Railway Receipts, the Commissioner did not accept the ownership claim, leading to doubts about the reliability of the evidence presented. The appellant's argument under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act regarding the return of seized goods was also considered.Compliance with Customs Act provisions:The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute regarding the ownership of the goods, as supported by documents and the absence of other claimants. The Commissioner was found to have exceeded the scope of the remand order by not returning the goods to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the goods were to be returned to the appellant as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.