2005 (5) TMI 469 - Commissioner - Customs

Appellant wins case on legal motorcycle import, Customs lacked evidence, burden of proof highlighted.

The judgment concluded in favor of the appellant, determining that the motor cycle was legally imported. It highlighted the Customs department's failure ... Confiscation, fine and penalty - Assessment - Re-opening of assessment - Limitation Issues:1. Allegation of illegal importation of a motor cycle.2. Proper assessment and verification of documents at the time of import.3. Burden of proof in case of non-notified goods.4. Application of relevant instructions and orders in customs cases.Analysis:1. The case involved the seizure of a motor cycle based on specific information, alleging illegal importation. The motor cycle was confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision, claiming that the motor cycle was legally imported and any discrepancies were due to improper checking at the time of import.2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the Customs failed to detect the wrongly mentioned chassis number in the bill of entry, leading to the confusion. The appellant contended that if the engine number and other details matched the documents, the presumption should favor legal importation. The judgment emphasized the importance of following mandatory verification procedures and noted that minor mistakes, such as missing prefixes in the chassis number, could occur without indicating illegal importation.3. The burden of proof in establishing illegal importation of non-notified goods lies with the Customs department. The judgment highlighted that the department failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove illegal importation, especially considering that the motor cycle bore a foreign mark. Instructions and orders, such as No. 394/184/92-Cus./AS, emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the department, and failure to provide such evidence cannot lead to confiscation of goods.4. The judgment concluded that the motor cycle was legally imported, and the original decision lacked proper application of mind and supporting evidence. It referenced Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2004, which had been accepted by the department, to support the findings. The decision to set aside the Order-in-Original was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of illegal importation, highlighting the importance of following established procedures and burden of proof principles in customs cases.