1972 (2) TMI 35 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court quashes confiscation order for watches due to lack of proof.

KANUNGO & CO. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, quashing the order of confiscation for 54 watches and one watch. It held that the burden of proof had not ... Natural Justice is not violated if the person giving information is not allowed cross-examination — Burden of proof — Illegal import — Proof of Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice3. Burden of Proof4. Evidence of Illegal ImportationIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction of the Customs AuthoritiesThe appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector in their reply to the show-cause notice dated May 25, 1963. However, this issue was not the primary focus of the judgment, and the Supreme Court did not find substantial merit in this contention.Compliance with Principles of Natural JusticeThe appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated, specifically that the Customs Authorities did not produce the individuals from whom inquiries were made for cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that there was no breach of natural justice. The Court stated, 'In our opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities.' The show-cause notice issued on August 21, 1961, contained all the material relied upon by the Customs Authorities, and it was for the appellant to provide a suitable explanation.Burden of ProofThe appellant contended that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on them. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating, 'What the impugned order does is that it refers to the evidence on the record which militates against the version of the appellant and then states that the appellant had not been able to meet the inferences arising therefrom.' The Court upheld the High Court's view that the burden of proof had shifted to the appellant after the Customs Authorities had informed them of the results of their inquiries and investigations.Evidence of Illegal ImportationThe appellant argued that there was no evidence that the watches had been imported in contravention of the law. The Supreme Court found that except for certain items, there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the High Court. The Court noted that 'a false denial could be relied on by the Customs Authorities for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the goods had been illegally imported.' However, the Court found merit in the appellant's case concerning 54 pieces of watches received for repair and one watch mentioned in Para 18 of the show-cause notice. The Court stated, 'In our opinion, it would be impossible for a watch-repairer to produce any further evidence in order to justify possession of watches.' The apparent bona fides of the correction slip and receipt book could not be ignored based on the reasons given by the Customs Authorities.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and quashed the order dated June 15, 1963, regarding the confiscation of 54 watches mentioned in Para 8 and the one watch mentioned in Para 18 of the show-cause notice. The Court concluded that the Customs Authorities had not sufficiently discharged their burden of proof for these items. There was no order as to costs in this appeal.