Appellate Tribunal orders release of confiscated goods, emphasizing burden of proof on Revenue

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata allowed the appeal, directing the Revenue to release the confiscated zinc Ingots/slabs and Apricot Facial Scrub. The Tribunal found no evidence of smuggling and accepted the appellant's ownership claim supported by the railway receipt. Emphasizing the lack of justification for confiscation of non-notified goods, the decision highlighted the burden of proof on the Revenue and dismissed minor discrepancies in weight as insufficient to disqualify ownership claims. The judgment underscored the necessity of verifying ownership before confiscation in cases involving non-notified items under the Customs Act.

---

---

Issues:
Confiscation of zinc Ingots/slabs and Apricot Facial Scrub by customs officers from Indian Railways; Ownership claim by the appellant disputed; Goods being non-notified items under Customs Act; Burden of proof on Revenue to show smuggling; Discrepancies in weight of zinc slabs; Appeal against confiscation orders.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata pertained to the confiscation of zinc Ingots/slabs and Apricot Facial Scrub seized by customs officers from the custody of Indian Railways, booked by the appellants. The authorities below had confiscated the goods, rejecting the appellant's claim of legal ownership, contending that being non-notified items under section 123 of the Customs Act, they could be confiscated despite being freely available in the market and without evidence of smuggling.

The appellant, represented by counsel, argued that producing the railway receipt showing the goods were booked by him should establish ownership. He emphasized that as non-notified items, the burden to prove smuggling rested with the Revenue, and minor discrepancies in weight should not affect ownership claims. The appellant challenged the officers' dismissal of his ownership claim without verification.

The Tribunal considered the seized goods as non-notified items with no evidence of smuggling, leading to no justification for confiscation. The appellant's production of the railway receipt was deemed sufficient to establish ownership, directing the Revenue to release the goods. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence of smuggling and the appellant's proof of ownership through the railway receipt.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the lack of justification for confiscation due to the non-notified nature of the goods and absence of evidence of smuggling. The appellant's ownership claim supported by the railway receipt was upheld, highlighting the burden of proof on the Revenue and dismissing minor discrepancies as disqualifying factors in establishing ownership. The judgment emphasized the importance of verifying ownership claims before confiscation in cases involving non-notified items under the Customs Act.

---