Betel nuts not notified under Section 123 Customs Act, department must prove smuggling with positive evidence

The CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of appellants in a betel nut smuggling case. The tribunal held that betel nuts are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, placing the burden of proof on the department to establish smuggling through positive evidence. The department failed to discharge this burden, relying solely on negative inference and a certificate from ARDF Mangalore, which various courts have deemed unreliable as it lacks accreditation. The tribunal found no evidence indicating how or wherefrom the goods were smuggled, making the seizure unjustified. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:

• Whether the seized betel nuts were of foreign origin and smuggled into India, thus liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962;
• Whether the certificate issued by the Arecanut Research and Development Foundation (ARDF), Mangalore, is a reliable and legally admissible piece of evidence to establish the foreign origin of the goods;
• Whether the burden of proof to establish smuggling lies on the department or the appellants, particularly given that betel nuts are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962;
• Whether the seized goods were unfit for human consumption and if that fact justifies confiscation or penalties under Customs law;
• Whether the procedural requirements under Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, including sample drawing in presence of the owner, were complied with;
• Whether the appellants' claim of indigenous origin of the goods, supported by tax invoices and purchase vouchers, was sufficiently rebutted by the department;
• Whether the seized goods, being perishable agricultural products, warrant special consideration in terms of procedural fairness and burden of proof;
• Whether reliance on reports from non-accredited private laboratories is legally sustainable to justify confiscation and penalties.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Whether the seized betel nuts were smuggled foreign goods liable for confiscation

The Customs Act, 1962, empowers confiscation of goods if they are smuggled or imported/exported in contravention of the law. Section 123 of the Act lists notified goods for which presumptions of smuggling apply. Betel nuts are not notified under Section 123, thus the burden of proof lies squarely on the department to establish smuggling by cogent and positive evidence.

The department relied on the certificate issued by ARDF, Mangalore, and the inability of appellants to provide verifiable details of indigenous procurement to allege smuggling. However, the Tribunal noted that the department's investigation primarily aimed to disprove appellants' claims rather than produce positive evidence of smuggling. The investigation revealed contradictions and inability to verify purchase vouchers due to the remote and tribal nature of the sellers, but no direct evidence of smuggling or illegal importation was produced.

The Tribunal referred to precedent where betel nuts being non-notified goods require the department to discharge the burden of proof. Negative inference or failure to verify indigenous origin is insufficient to establish smuggling. The absence of any narration or reference to the source or route of alleged smuggling further weakened the department's case.

Conclusion: The department failed to discharge the burden of proving that the seized betel nuts were smuggled foreign goods. The seizure and confiscation were thus unjustified.

Issue 2: Reliability and admissibility of the ARDF certificate

The ARDF, Mangalore, is a private research body engaged in Arecanut development. The certificate issued by ARDF was the primary basis for the department's claim that the seized goods were of Indonesian origin and unfit for human consumption.

However, the Tribunal extensively reviewed judicial precedents holding that ARDF is not an accredited laboratory under the relevant laws and rules. The Patna High Court and Madras High Court have held that reports from ARDF cannot be relied upon to fasten legal liability. The Tribunal also cited its own prior decisions affirming the non-reliability of ARDF reports for origin determination.

Further, the Tribunal noted that the ARDF itself admitted that country of origin cannot be conclusively determined by laboratory tests, undermining the evidentiary value of the certificate. The Tribunal emphasized that no legal liability can flow from non-accredited private laboratory reports.

Conclusion: The ARDF certificate is not a reliable or admissible piece of evidence to establish foreign origin or smuggling of the betel nuts. The department's reliance on it was misplaced.

Issue 3: Burden of proof and evidentiary standards

Since betel nuts are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden to prove smuggling lies on the department. The Tribunal underscored that the department must produce cogent and positive evidence rather than rely on negative inferences or unverified claims.

The appellants produced tax invoices, purchase vouchers, and government reports indicating indigenous production of betel nuts in Assam and Mizoram, including official receipts from the Trade & Commerce Department, Government of Mizoram. The department's failure to verify these documents due to the remote and tribal nature of sellers was acknowledged, but the Tribunal held that this does not shift the burden of proof onto the appellants.

The Tribunal also noted that the department did not provide any corroborative evidence or details of smuggling routes or modus operandi, which is essential to establish smuggling allegations.

Conclusion: The department failed to meet the evidentiary standard required to prove smuggling, and the appellants' evidence of indigenous origin remained unrebutted by positive proof.

Issue 4: Procedural compliance and sample testing under Section 144 of the Customs Act

The appellants contended that samples were not drawn in their presence, violating Section 144 of the Customs Act, which requires sample drawing in the presence of the owner or their representative.

The Tribunal noted this procedural lapse, which undermines the validity of the laboratory tests conducted on the samples. This procedural non-compliance further detracts from the reliability of the department's evidence.

Conclusion: The procedural violation in sample drawing vitiates the laboratory test results and weakens the department's case.

Issue 5: Fitness of goods for human consumption and implications

The department relied on reports from the Assam State Public Health Laboratory and ARDF stating that the seized betel nuts were unfit for human consumption.

The Tribunal held that since the goods were neither imported nor proved to be smuggled, the Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to act on the basis of food safety concerns. The Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, implemented by the State Government, governs food safety issues, not Customs law.

Additionally, the appellants explained that betel nuts have multiple uses beyond direct consumption, including processing for pan masala, gutkha, plywood, and dyes, thereby questioning the relevance of the food safety test in this context.

Conclusion: The unfitness for human consumption does not justify confiscation under Customs law, particularly absent proof of smuggling.

Issue 6: Treatment of competing arguments and evidence

The department argued that the appellants' purchase vouchers were unverifiable and possibly forged, and that some suppliers denied selling betel nuts to the appellants. The appellants countered that due to the tribal and remote nature of the sellers in Mizoram, detailed addresses and contact numbers were not available, and cash transactions were common without formal records.

The Tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation regarding the topography and socio-economic conditions of Mizoram, recognizing the challenges in verifying such evidence. It held that the inability of the department to verify does not amount to proof of smuggling.

Conclusion: The Tribunal gave due weight to the appellants' contextual explanations and found the department's allegations based on unverifiable evidence insufficient.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal established the following core principles and made final determinations:

• "Betel nut is not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the burden of proof lies with the department to prove the same. It's not just enough to prove by negative inference. Allegation requires to be proved by cogent and positive evidence."
• "No legal liability can flow from report of such institution [ARDF]... The Revenue could not prove that the goods were smuggled or produce any corroborative evidence in support of their case."
• "In absence of any evidence that confiscated goods were illegally smuggled into India, same cannot be confiscated merely based on test report of an organization which later on also admitted that country of origin cannot be determined through test in laboratory."
• "Since the goods are neither imported nor proved to be smuggled, no action by Customs is warranted on the ground of unfitness for human consumption."
• "The procedural non-compliance in sample drawing under Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, vitiates the laboratory test results relied upon by the department."

Final determination: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the confiscation and penalties, and held that the seizure of the betel nuts was unjustified due to failure of the department to discharge the burden of proof and reliance on inadmissible evidence.

---