TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns confiscation order for Chinese imports due to lack of evidence</h1> <h3>RANG BIRANGI SAREES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal that confiscated Chinese silk fabrics and make-up pencils under Section 111(a) of the ... Smuggling - Non-notified goods Issues involved: Challenge to confiscation of Chinese silk fabrics and make-up pencils u/s 111(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.The appellants challenged the Order-in-Appeal arising from the Order-in-Original confiscating Chinese silk fabrics and make-up pencils valued at Rs. 9,35,795.00 u/s 111(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.Grievance of the Appellant:The principal grievance was that the seized goods were not notified goods and not governed by Section 123 of the Act. The appellant argued that the authorities failed to consider relevant documents and acted unjustly. The goods were intercepted and seized as the appellant could not explain how they were imported to India.Adjudication by Commissioner (Appeals):The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the seized goods did not match the description of the goods imported by the appellants as per the Bill of Entry. The appellants failed to provide evidence contradicting the lower authority's observations.Appellant's Arguments:The appellant's counsel argued that the goods matched the description in the Bill of Entry and no penal action was warranted. They also contended that the Revenue failed to prove that the goods did not flow out of the import as per the Bill of Entry.Revenue's Argument:The Revenue argued that the imported material was irrelevant to the seized goods and that they had discharged their burden of proof through the seizure. The Revenue relied on various judgments to support their position.Decision and Rationale:The Tribunal held that in the absence of proof of import, goods are liable to confiscation. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to establish smuggling and lacked evidence. Citing various cases, the Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue in cases of non-notified goods. Due to the lack of evidence, the benefit of doubt favored the appellants, leading to the appeal's success and setting aside of the impugned order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
