2003 (10) TMI 507 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds decision on foreign goods confiscation appeal, reduces penalties, emphasizes post-1992 EXIM Policy changes.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals against the Customs (Appeals) orders, upholding the decision to set aside the confiscation of certain consumer goods of ... Confiscation - Smuggled goods - Burden of proof Issues:- Appeal against the orders of Customs (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation of certain consumer goods of foreign origin.- Grounds taken by Revenue.- Analysis of the goods under seizure.- Reduction of penalty by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).- Interpretation of case law and EXIM Policy changes.- Dismissal of the appeals.Grounds taken by Revenue:The Revenue relied on various Tribunal decisions and the inability to produce any document for the goods, along with the admission that the goods are of foreign origin. The Revenue argued that the department's onus to prove the smuggled nature of the goods has not been discharged.Analysis of the goods under seizure:The goods seized from the shop premises included cameras, calculators, video game cassettes, a walkman, wristwatches, deodorants, spray bottles, hair dryers, and foreign currency. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of the foreign currency and reduced the penalty imposed on the firm and the partner.Reduction of penalty by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals):The penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- on the firm and Rs. 5,000/- on the partner. This reduction was based on the findings and considerations of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).Interpretation of case law and EXIM Policy changes:The judgment highlighted the changes in the EXIM Policy post-1992, emphasizing the liberalization of baggage imports and the lifting of the ban on the resale of goods imported in baggage. The court noted that the goods in question, although of foreign origin and lacking bills, were freely available and tradeable. The court distinguished the case law relied upon by the Revenue, stating that it was not applicable to the notified goods in this case.Dismissal of the appeals:After considering the facts and arguments presented, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the decision to set aside the confiscation of the consumer goods of foreign origin.