2007 (4) TMI 158 - HC - Customs

Court affirms Customs Tribunal decision on confiscated goods and penalty for possessing foreign ball bearings

The court upheld the Customs Tribunal's decision to confiscate the goods and impose a penalty on the appellant for possessing foreign origin ball bearings ... Penalty – A ball bearings of foreign origin was recovered from godown are confiscated on the ground that appellant didn’t produce any documents to prove its relevancy and redemption fine and penalty imposed on him by adjudicating authority – Order of adjudicating authority upheld Issues:Appeal against Customs Tribunal's order - Confiscation of goods and penalty reduction challenge.Analysis:The case involved an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against a Customs Tribunal order. The appellant's godown was searched, and foreign origin Ball Bearings worth Rs. 1,11,76,250/- were found without proper proof of lawful import. The appellant claimed the goods belonged to someone else, but investigations revealed inconsistencies in his statements. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lacs, later reduced to Rs. 5 lacs by the Tribunal.The appellant argued that there was no evidence of smuggling against him, citing lack of documentation and denial of knowledge about contraband goods. He also contended that his application for cross-examination was wrongly rejected, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. However, the respondent maintained that the Tribunal's order was sound.The appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitted the recovery of ball bearings from his godown, providing details of the premises and the alleged supplier. Despite not challenging the confiscation order, the appellant raised concerns about the denial of cross-examination. The court noted the absence of a challenge to the Commissioner's decision and the appellant's admission of guilt, questioning the necessity of cross-examination.The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments, stating that the cited judgments were not relevant to the case. It upheld the concurrent findings of the recovery of foreign origin ball bearings from the appellant's godown. Consequently, the court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal.