Burden of proof in customs wrong supply claims lies on importer; unsupported e-mails cannot displace Revenue's case.

In customs adjudication, an importer raising a plea of wrong supply must first prove it with credible evidence, and unsupported correspondence does not shift the burden to the Revenue. The finding of violation of natural justice was also untenable because the importer had waived show cause notice and participated in the personal hearing, with no specific plea or material supporting that ground. The appellate order treating unproven e-mails as sufficient was unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the importer's appeal on the plea of wrong supply and violation of natural justice was sustainable.

Analysis: The finding of violation of natural justice was unsustainable because the importer had waived show cause notice and participated in the personal hearing, and no specific plea or material supported that ground. On merits, the plea of wrong supply had to be proved by the importer with supporting evidence. The documents relied upon were only e-mails, whose authenticity was not established before the adjudicating authority. In the context of customs proceedings, the initial burden lay on the importer to establish the alleged wrong supply, and only thereafter could any onus shift to the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in treating the unproven correspondence as sufficient and in holding that the Department had failed to contradict the claim.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication, a plea of wrong supply or similar exculpatory claim must first be proved by the importer with credible evidence, and unsupported correspondence does not discharge that burden or shift the onus to the Revenue.

---