2017 (10) TMI 1425 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns Customs order, favors appellant in battery scrap seizure case

VINOD SAH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE), LUCKNOW

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant in a case involving the interception and seizure of battery scrap loaded on a ... Illegal import or not - import of Old Batter scrap from Nepal - violation of Section 7(1)(c) of Customs Act, 1962 and Notification No. 9/96-Cus., dated 22-1-1996 issued under Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962 or not - Held that:- There is no evidence on record to establish that the old battery scrap which was subject matter of the proceedings was brought into India from Nepal through either designated routes or undesignated routes. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish that there was any violation of said Notification No. 9/96-Cus. There is no evidence on record to know through which route the goods were brought for the simple reason that there was no evidence that they were brought from Nepal to India. Therefore, there is no evidence to establish that there was violation of Section 7(1)(c) of Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:Interception and seizure of goods under Customs Act, 1962 based on violation of provisions, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, appeal against Order-in-Original, grounds of appeal challenging presumptions and origin of goods.Interception and Seizure of Goods:The case involved the interception and subsequent seizure of a truck loaded with battery scrap based on the reasonable belief that the goods violated Section 7(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a specific notification. The value of the battery scrap and the truck were specified in the proceedings.Confiscation and Penalty Imposition:The Original Authority, through an Order-in-Original, held that the battery scrap was of foreign origin or illegally brought into India, thereby violating relevant provisions of the Customs Act. Consequently, the goods and the truck were confiscated with the option to redeem them upon payment of fines. Additionally, a penalty was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act.Appeal Against Order-in-Original:The appellant challenged the Order-in-Original through an appeal before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was decided along with other cases, and the Commissioner did not overturn the original decision, leading to the appellant seeking redressal before the Tribunal.Grounds of Appeal:The grounds of appeal presented by the appellant included contentions that the case was based on presumptions, the old battery scrap was not a prohibited item, it was not imported from Nepal by the appellant, it was purchased from the open market, and there was no evidence of the goods being brought from Nepal through an unauthorized route.Tribunal Decision:After considering the arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal found a lack of evidence to establish that the battery scrap in question was brought into India from Nepal through designated or undesignated routes. The absence of proof regarding the origin and route of the goods led to the conclusion that there was no violation of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal, rendering the original decision non-existent in law. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant entitlement to consequential relief as per the law.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment outlines the issues involved, the sequence of events leading to the appeal, the grounds of appeal, and the final decision of the Tribunal in favor of the appellant based on the lack of evidence supporting the alleged violations.