Confiscation of betel nuts: burden on possessor to rebut smuggling presumption; quality finding that goods became unfit sustained

Where goods seized as smuggled require the revenue authority to have a reasonable belief as to foreign origin, the burden to prove they are not smuggled lies on the person from whose possession they were seized or on an owner-claimant; on the facts no material or expert evidence supported foreign origin and that legal standard was unmet, with the tribunals conclusion upheld. Separately, scientific tests showed fitness for consumption at seizure but later deterioration while goods remained seized, and that change in quality does not revive confiscation jurisdiction over released goods; the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Standard of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legality of the order of confiscation of goods deemed unfit for human consumption.
3. Alleged perversity of the findings by the CESTAT, Kolkata.

Summary:

Issue 1: Standard of Proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962
The court examined whether the CESTAT, Kolkata, erred in law by holding that the standard of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, is beyond reasonable doubt. The court clarified that Section 123 shifts the burden of proof to the person from whom the goods were seized only if the goods are notified under Section 123(2). In this case, betel nuts are not notified goods under Section 123(2). Therefore, the initial burden to prove that the goods were smuggled lies with the revenue authority. The court upheld the tribunal's view that the burden of proof under Section 123(1) does not apply here, answering the question of law against the appellant.

Issue 2: Legality of the Order of Confiscation
The court addressed whether the CESTAT, Kolkata, erred in setting aside the confiscation order when the seized goods were found unfit for human consumption. It was noted that the goods were initially found fit for human consumption but were deemed unfit after seven months. The court stated that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Customs Authority to challenge the tribunal's decision on this ground. If the released goods are used for human consumption, other authorities can take appropriate action. This question of law was also answered against the appellant.

Issue 3: Alleged Perversity of the Findings
The court examined the alleged perversity of the CESTAT's findings. It found that the revenue authority failed to provide sufficient evidence that the goods were of foreign origin and smuggled. The GST invoices and e-way bills produced by the respondents were not satisfactorily refuted by the revenue authority. The court noted the absence of any foreign markings or credible expert opinions suggesting that the goods were of foreign origin. It concluded that the tribunal's decision was based on a proper appreciation of the available material and was not perverse. This question of law was also answered against the appellant.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit, with each party bearing its own costs.

---