Betel nuts not specified goods under Section 123 Customs Act burden on authorities to prove smuggling

CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal regarding confiscation of betel nuts seized during domestic transportation. The Tribunal held that betel nuts are not specified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, placing the burden of proving smuggled nature on Custom Authorities. The revenue failed to establish foreign origin or illegal importation through satisfactory evidence. Local trade opinion cannot substitute legal evidence. Non-existence of consigner at specified address and GST registration cancellation alone do not prove foreign origin or smuggling. The goods were being transported domestically without crossing international borders. Custom Authorities failed to discharge their burden of proof, resulting in the appeal being allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and Penalty of Betel Nuts
2. Burden of Proof for Smuggled Goods
3. Reliability of Arecanut Research & Development Foundation (ARDF) Report
4. Non-existence of Consignor and Cancellation of GST Registration

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Confiscation and Penalty of Betel Nuts:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalty on the appellant, citing that the consigner firm M/s Ganga Enterprises was non-existent, and the GSTN of Mr. Pankaj Kumar Yadav was canceled for violations. The appellant's defense, which included documents indicating local purchase of the betel nuts, was not accepted due to these discrepancies. The adjudicating authority's decision was based on the differing facts of the case, distinguishing it from previous cases cited by the appellant.

2. Burden of Proof for Smuggled Goods:
The Tribunal observed that betel nuts are not specified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, which places the burden of proving the smuggled nature of the goods on the Customs Authorities. The Tribunal cited previous cases, including Baboo Banik and Bijoy Kumar Lohia, to assert that no evidence was provided to establish the foreign origin or illegal importation of the betel nuts. The goods were seized during local transportation, not crossing any international borders.

3. Reliability of Arecanut Research & Development Foundation (ARDF) Report:
The Tribunal noted that reliance on the ARDF report was improper. Previous judgments, including Maa Gauri Traders and Laltanpuii, held that ARDF's opinion could not conclusively determine the country of origin of betel nuts. The Tribunal emphasized that the ARDF report is merely an opinion and not a scientific test report. The Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court have also dismissed the reliability of ARDF reports in similar cases.

4. Non-existence of Consignor and Cancellation of GST Registration:
The Commissioner (Appeals) distinguished the present case by highlighting the non-existence of the consignor at the specified address and the cancellation of the appellant's GST registration. However, the Tribunal found that these points did not establish the foreign origin or smuggled nature of the goods. The burden of proof remained unmet by the Customs Authorities, as the cancellation of GST registration and non-existence of the consignor did not suffice to prove the goods were smuggled.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding no merit in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The decision was based on the lack of evidence to prove the foreign origin and smuggled nature of the betel nuts, as well as the unreliability of the ARDF report. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.

---