2017 (11) TMI 559 - HC - Customs

Petition challenging SAFEMA property forfeiture order dismissed. Tribunal's decision upheld. Authenticity of evidence emphasized.

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the order of forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA. It upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding the ... Forfeiture of properties of respondents - smuggling - COFEPOSA Act - It is alleged that the respondent and his associates used to over-value the consignments declared before the customs authorities in India. Whereas, the consignments were declared to be of exorbitant values in India, the declarations made before the customs authorities of the importing countries indicated a significantly lower value. Main contention of petitioner is that the documents produced by the respondent to establish that the properties in question were purchased in 1993 were unregistered and, therefore, the respondent had failed to prove that the properties were legally acquired. Held that: - there was ample evidence on record to substantiate the respondent’s claim that the said properties were purchased in 1993. As opposed to the same, the Competent Authority had not produced any material that would even remotely cast a doubt as to the respondent’s claim - The Tribunal had also noted that the Competent Authority had not even discussed that the firm involved in the illegal activities were established in the year 2000 and there was no allegation that respondent was involved in any illegal activity prior to the year 2000. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues:Challenge to order of forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA based on acquisition date and authenticity of documents.Analysis:1. Issue of Acquisition Date:The petitioner, a Competent Authority under SAFEMA, challenged an order of the Appellate Tribunal forfeiting properties acquired before alleged violations. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's claim that the properties were purchased in 1993, prior to alleged illegal activities. The respondent provided unregistered documents and affidavits supporting the purchase date. The Competent Authority contended that the documents were unauthenticated and failed to prove legal acquisition. However, the Tribunal found the respondent's evidence sufficient, noting the lack of contradictory material from the Competent Authority. The Tribunal highlighted the respondent's family involvement in business before the alleged illegal activities, further supporting the acquisition date claim.2. Issue of Document Authenticity:The Competent Authority argued that unregistered documents provided by the respondent were insufficient to prove legal acquisition of properties. The petitioner contended that the documents lacked authenticity and failed to establish the acquisition date. However, the Tribunal examined the original documents, including affidavits and agreements, attested by a Notary in 1993, confirming the property transfer. The Tribunal found no evidence of forgery or fabrication, as the Competent Authority provided no material to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of discussion by the Competent Authority regarding the respondent's involvement in illegal activities before 2000, the year the firm associated with violations was established.3. Judicial Decision:The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order. It found the respondent's evidence, including original documents and affidavits, sufficient to establish the 1993 acquisition date. The Court noted the lack of contradictory material from the Competent Authority and emphasized the authenticity of the provided documents. The Court highlighted the respondent's family business involvement before the alleged illegal activities as additional support for the acquisition date claim. Consequently, the Court found no fault with the Tribunal's decision and ordered each party to bear their own costs.