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 & penalties due to Customs' failure to prove smuggling. Burden shifted to authorities.</h1> <h3>Dudahari Traders Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi</h3> Dudahari Traders Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2017 (358) E.L.T. 360 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Allegation of importing mobile batteries without proper documents- Seizure of mobile batteries from appellant's premises- Show cause notice issued for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act- Burden of proof on appellant regarding legal importation and possession of goods- Interpretation of Section 123 of the Customs Act- Lack of evidence to prove seized goods as smuggled- Confiscation order and penalties imposed on the appellantAnalysis:The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the seizure of mobile batteries from the appellant's premises. The appellant, a trader, was alleged to have imported the batteries without proper documents. Customs Officers seized the batteries during an investigation and issued a show cause notice for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act due to the appellant's inability to provide proof of legal possession of the goods.During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the Revenue failed to establish that the seized goods were smuggled, thus the impugned order should be set aside. The Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the lower authority, which focused on the lack of documentary evidence for legal importation and possession of the goods by the appellant.The Tribunal examined Section 123 of the Customs Act, which places the burden of proving that seized goods are not smuggled on the person from whom such goods are seized. However, mobile phone batteries were not notified under Section 123, relieving the appellant from proving the goods were not smuggled. Therefore, the burden of proof that the seized goods were smuggled lay with the Customs authorities. Since no evidence was presented to substantiate the goods as smuggled, the Tribunal concluded there was no justification for confiscation under Section 111 or imposition of penalties under Section 112.As a result, the Tribunal vacated the order for confiscation and penalties imposed on the appellant, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 6-1-2017.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
