2014 (2) TMI 219 - AT - Customs

Court upholds decision on confiscated goods, rejects Revenue's appeal. Lack of proof of smuggling cited.

Commr. of Customs (Prev.), WB., Kolkata Versus Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal

Commr. of Customs (Prev.), WB., Kolkata Versus Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal - TMI Issues involved:- Appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) regarding the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.- Verification of ownership and legitimacy of goods claimed by the appellant.- Burden of proof on Revenue to establish that the goods are smuggled.- Application of Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) regarding the confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty. The case involved the inspection of parcel packages containing camera and camera parts of foreign origin, which were detained and later seized as no bills could be produced by the owners. The appellant, Shri Deepak Kr. Agarwal, claimed ownership of the goods but failed to produce sufficient documents to support his claim. The lower authorities confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal by the respondent against this decision.2. The Revenue argued that the appellant did not provide genuine documents to prove the legitimacy of the goods, and since the goods appeared to be of foreign origin, manipulation of names was possible. The Revenue contended that in the absence of valid documents demonstrating lawful acquisition and import of the goods, they should be treated as illegal imports. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate contended that the burden to prove that the goods were smuggled lay with the Revenue, emphasizing that the goods were purchased from the local market in Chennai, making certain provisions of the Customs Act inapplicable.3. The judgment highlighted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) had extensively analyzed the case and found that the appellant had indeed purchased the goods from Chennai, with the packages arriving from the same location. The Commissioner established that the appellant was a legitimate recipient of the packages based on the address details, and rightfully claimed ownership of the goods purchased from Chennai. It was noted that the Revenue had not verified the authenticity of the single cacha challan produced by the appellant during the investigation. Additionally, it was emphasized that since the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, it was the responsibility of Revenue to conclusively prove that the procured goods were indeed smuggled, which they failed to do so.4. In conclusion, the judgment rejected the appeal by Revenue, as it found no merit in their arguments. The decision was based on the failure of Revenue to establish beyond doubt that the goods were smuggled, the lack of verification of the cacha challan, and the absence of notification of the goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The judgment upheld the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal accordingly.