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>Customs Act: Burden of proof on Revenue to establish foreign origin. Lack of evidence leads to Order-in-Original being set aside.</h1> <h3>Muruli Sandik, Jay Jayram Yadav, Jagarnath Yadav Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong</h3> Muruli Sandik, Jay Jayram Yadav, Jagarnath Yadav Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong - TMI Issues:1. Confiscation of seized betel nuts and imposition of fines and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, North East Region, which ordered the confiscation of seized betel nuts and imposed fines and penalties on the appellants under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that the seized goods were not of foreign origin and were not smuggled into India. They submitted various documents to support their claim, including Form-K, Form-M, and railway receipts. The Adjudicating Authority focused on the lack of trade license and sale/cash memos as grounds for confiscation, disregarding the evidence provided by the appellants. The appellants contended that the burden of proof was on the department to establish that the goods were of foreign origin and smuggled into India. They cited relevant case laws to support their argument.2. The Revenue argued that the appellants failed to produce necessary documents regarding the purchase of the seized goods, and the forms submitted did not match the recovered/seized goods. The Adjudicating Authority's findings were reiterated by the Revenue.3. The core issue in the appeals was whether the seized betel nuts were of foreign origin and smuggled into India. The show cause notice did not specify that the goods came into India from across the border. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on a belief rather than concrete evidence of foreign origin. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish the goods' foreign origin and smuggling. The appellants provided evidence of local procurement of betel nuts, and any deficiencies in local documentation could not justify confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. Reference was made to a similar case decided by CESTAT, Delhi, emphasizing the onus on the Revenue to prove smuggling in cases of non-notified goods.4. Considering the lack of evidence proving the seized goods were of foreign origin and smuggled into India, the appeals were allowed, and the Order-in-Original was set aside. The appellants were granted consequential relief.This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and findings of the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications under the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 