Circumstantial evidence and forged invoices can prove foreign origin of seized goods; matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Circumstantial evidence can establish foreign origin where direct proof is unavailable, and the conduct of persons dealing with seized goods is relevant to that determination. In this matter, the invoices relied upon were found inconsistent with the public notice showing closure of the concern, and the proprietor's written communication stated that the invoices were forged. The appellate authority had not properly considered these materials, which went to the root of whether the copper and aluminium scrap was of foreign origin and brought into India in contravention of restrictions. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had ignored material evidence showing that the invoices relied upon were forged and that the seized copper and aluminium scrap were of foreign origin, and whether the matter was liable to be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The record showed that the scrap was seized under the Customs Act and the department's case was that the goods were of foreign origin and had been brought into India in contravention of the notified restrictions. The invoices produced by the noticees were inconsistent with the public notice showing closure of the concern from an earlier date, and the proprietor's written communication stated that the invoices were forged. Where direct proof of foreign origin is unavailable, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient, and the conduct of the persons dealing with the goods was relevant. The appellate authority had not properly considered these materials, which went to the root of the dispute.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter was required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after hearing both sides.

---