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 Rejects Confiscation: Lack of Evidence Favors Respondents</h1> <h3>Commr. of Customs, Patna Versus Shri Ram Chandra Prasad And Others</h3> Commr. of Customs, Patna Versus Shri Ram Chandra Prasad And Others - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 548 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:1. Confiscation of pulses/cereals and truck for illegal export to Nepal.2. Imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962.3. Interpretation of Section 113(d) and Section 2(19) of the Customs Act.4. Evidence required for goods to be considered for export.5. Confiscation of the vehicle and owner's knowledge.Analysis:Issue 1: Confiscation of pulses/cereals and truck for illegal export to NepalThe Revenue contended that the intercepted truck carrying assorted pulses/cereals was intended for illegal export to Nepal, leading to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue argued that the goods were correctly confiscated, penalties were rightly imposed, and the vehicle was rightfully confiscated under Section 115 of the Act.Issue 2: Imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962The Revenue emphasized that the goods were prohibited for export to Nepal as per DGFT Notification, justifying the penalties imposed. The argument was supported by Section 114 of the Customs Act, which designates a specified area near the Indo-Nepal border for export restrictions.Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 113(d) and Section 2(19) of the Customs ActThe Tribunal analyzed Section 113(d) and Section 2(19) to determine that only goods attempted for export are liable for confiscation. Lack of concrete evidence indicating the goods were meant for export to Nepal led to the conclusion that the confiscated goods were moving within India's territory, not for export.Issue 4: Evidence required for goods to be considered for exportThe Respondents argued that the confiscated goods were intended for distribution/sale within India only, citing case laws to support the notion that transportation to a godown within India does not constitute an export attempt. The lack of evidence supporting the export intention to Nepal weakened the Revenue's case.Issue 5: Confiscation of the vehicle and owner's knowledgeThe Tribunal found no evidence implicating the truck owner's knowledge of the smuggled goods, leading to the conclusion that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 113(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The absence of incriminating evidence supported the decision to reject the Revenue's appeals.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision to set aside the confiscation of pulses/cereals and the truck, as there was insufficient evidence to prove an attempt to export to Nepal. The lack of concrete proof and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions favored the Respondents, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
