2014 (4) TMI 611 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds Commissioner's order in Revenue's appeal regarding dropped proceedings

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case where the Revenue's appeal against dropping proceedings initiated via a show-cause ... Smuggling – Whether goods were notified goods – Burden of Proof - Issuance of show cause notice - Held that:- Since goods seized in question are not notified goods - Thus, the burden of proof that these goods are smuggled in nature is on the Revenue - The Revenue has failed to produce any cogent evidence that that these goods were smuggled into India and were not procured by the respondents – There is no infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld - The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed – Decided against Revenue. Issues:Revenue's appeal against dropping of proceedings initiated via show-cause notice.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order where proceedings initiated through a show-cause notice were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent, a trader in electronic goods, had goods found stored at different places during an investigation. The Revenue claimed these goods were of foreign origin and smuggled into India without duty payment. The adjudicating authority allowed the goods on payment of a redemption fine and imposed a penalty along with customs duty. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, leading to the Revenue's appeal.During the hearing, the Revenue argued that as the goods were of foreign origin and the respondent failed to produce supporting documents, seizure, redemption fine, and penalty were justified. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that since the goods were not notified goods, the burden of proof that they were smuggled lay with the Revenue, not the respondent. As the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the goods were smuggled and not duty-paid, the proceedings were deemed unwarranted.After considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the seized goods were not notified goods, shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue to establish smuggling. Since the Revenue failed to present substantial evidence proving the goods were smuggled and not duty-paid, the impugned order was upheld. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.