2017 (3) TMI 491 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds Customs Act confiscation of foreign goods. Penalties imposed on consignees. Burden of proof debated.

The tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, including cigarettes, shoes, and ladies inner wear, suspected to be of foreign ... Smuggling - cigarettes - 410 pairs of shoes - 5800 pieces of lady's inner wear - the goods are prohibited goods or not - Held that: - appellants had submitted that their names were being misused as mentioned wrongly in the Airway bill. As the consignors are not traceable and the consignee had not substantiated any evidence in support of his claim of the goods, it may be concluded that the goods are of smuggled nature - regarding the imposition of penalty on the appellants, none of the appellants had refuted the charge of the habitual offence committed by them. Taking into account, the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of penalty is reduced - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 19622. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 19623. Burden of proof on department to establish seized goods as smuggled4. Allegations of consignees being unaware of smuggled goods5. Appellants' contentions of misused names and lack of evidence6. Reduction of penalties imposed on the appellantsConfiscation of Goods under the Customs Act, 1962:The case involved the seizure and subsequent confiscation of goods, including cigarettes, shoes, and ladies inner wear, suspected to be of foreign origin. The Customs Officers seized the goods based on a reasonable belief that they were of foreign origin, leading to their confiscation under section 111(b) and 9(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the consignees of the goods.Imposition of Penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:Penalties were imposed on various consignees of the seized goods, including individuals receiving packets of cigarettes of foreign origin. The penalties ranged from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 based on the number of packets received. Additionally, a redemption fine was imposed on the release of certain goods, while others were confiscated without an option for redemption.Burden of Proof on Department to Establish Seized Goods as Smuggled:The appellants contended that the burden lay on the department to prove that the seized goods were smuggled. They argued that the department failed to produce material or evidence establishing the goods as smuggled. The appellants highlighted various points, including the goods' origin, lack of fake goods, foreign markings, and non-notified nature, shifting the onus of proof onto the department.Allegations of Consignees Being Unaware of Smuggled Goods:The appellants, named as consignees, claimed that their names were misused, and they were unaware of the nature of the goods being transported. One appellant, working as a broker, stated ignorance regarding the goods' origin. They argued for redemption of the goods and contested the findings of the adjudicating authority as based on mere assumptions.Appellants' Contentions of Misused Names and Lack of Evidence:The appellants argued that the consignors of the seized goods were untraceable, and they denied knowledge of the consignments dispatched in their names. They contended that the consignors' use of their names did not imply collusion in smuggling. However, the adjudicating authority found circumstantial evidence indicating the consignees' involvement in transporting and dealing with illegally imported goods.Reduction of Penalties Imposed on the Appellants:While none of the appellants refuted the charges of habitual offenses, the tribunal decided to reduce the quantum of penalties imposed. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants. Additionally, the quantum of redemption fine in one appellant's case was also reduced.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, imposition of penalties on consignees, burden of proof on the department, allegations of consignees being unaware of smuggled goods, appellants' contentions of misused names, and reduction of penalties imposed on the appellants. The tribunal examined the evidence, considered the arguments presented, and made decisions based on the specific circumstances of each case.