2021 (12) TMI 918 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants appeals, emphasizes procedural fairness and burden of proof in smuggling cases.

Shri Subodh Das Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Siliguri

Shri Subodh Das Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Siliguri - TMI Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing Cross Objections by the Respondent Department.2. Confiscation of Betel Nuts under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Confiscation of carrier trucks under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and/or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Determination of the foreign origin and smuggled nature of the Betel Nuts.6. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses.7. Burden of proof on the Department to establish the foreign origin of the Betel Nuts.8. Claim of ownership of the seized goods by Md. Tashin Shah.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Cross Objections:The Respondent Department filed Miscellaneous Applications (COD for Cross Objection) to condone the delay in filing Cross Objections. The Tribunal allowed the applications based on the submissions and reasons provided by the Department, and with the consent of both parties, proceeded to hear the appeals.2. Confiscation of Betel Nuts:The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Siliguri Commissionerate, confiscated 82.92 MT of Betel Nuts under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the grounds that they were of foreign origin and smuggled from Myanmar. The Tribunal examined whether the Betel Nuts were indeed smuggled and found that the Department failed to establish the foreign origin of the goods.3. Confiscation of Carrier Trucks:Four carrier trucks were confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, but the Commissioner allowed redemption upon payment of fines. The Tribunal's decision on the smuggled nature of the Betel Nuts directly impacted the validity of the truck confiscations.4. Imposition of Penalties:Penalties were imposed on various individuals under Section 112(a) and/or 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal scrutinized the basis for these penalties, particularly the reliance on witness statements and the denial of cross-examination.5. Foreign Origin and Smuggled Nature of Betel Nuts:The Tribunal noted that Betel Nuts are not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, meaning the burden of proof lay with the Department. The Department's evidence, primarily based on witness statements, was found insufficient. The Tribunal highlighted that the seized goods were found far from the international border and were accompanied by market receipts indicating local purchase.6. Denial of Cross-Examination:The Tribunal criticized the denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were pivotal to the Department's case. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that such denial violated principles of natural justice.7. Burden of Proof:The Tribunal reiterated that the burden of proving the foreign origin of the Betel Nuts rested with the Department. The Department's failure to provide conclusive evidence meant that the confiscation and penalties could not be sustained.8. Ownership Claim by Md. Tashin Shah:Md. Tashin Shah claimed ownership of the seized goods, supported by documents of sale and purchase, money receipts, and consignment notes. The Tribunal found no objections to his claim and directed the return of the goods to him.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing all appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. The Department's Cross Objections were also disposed of. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the burden of proof in cases involving alleged smuggling.