Successful appeal against customs duty order due to lack of proof of alleged smuggling under Customs Act.

The appellant successfully appealed against the order demanding customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty for the alleged possession of smuggled goods. The Revenue failed to prove the alleged smuggling as the items were not notified under the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof was on the Revenue, but they could not establish the goods were smuggled. As a result, the appellant was not liable to pay duty, and the goods were not subject to confiscation. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty for alleged possession of smuggled goods.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the order demanding customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty for the alleged possession of smuggled goods. During a search at the appellant's premises, 228 pieces of televisions of brand names 'Sony' and 'Samsung' were found, leading the Revenue to claim that these goods were smuggled. The Revenue failed to prove the alleged smuggling, as the items were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish the goods were smuggled, but they could not do so. The televisions had serial numbers, and inquiries with Samsung Malaysia did not confirm them as manufactured by them. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay duty, and the goods were not subject to confiscation. Therefore, no redemption fine or penalty was imposed on the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---