2025 (4) TMI 1724 - AT - Customs

Appellate tribunal sets aside confiscation and penalties as Section 123 inapplicable; seized black pepper and peas not proven foreign

CESTAT KOLKATA - AT allowed the appeal, setting aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. The tribunal held that black pepper and peas seized in ... Smuggling - huge consignment of 3rd country origin Black Pepper and Green Peas have been smuggled from Nepal into India - notified goods or not - no conclusive evidence to the effect that the goods are of foreign origin - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, when the truck and the car were intercepted, the truck was found to be loaded with 6718.5 kgs of Black Pepper and 3918 kgs of Peas, without any proper documents. Also admittedly the interception and seizure took place at Muzaffarpur, that is well within the Indian region in Bihar. In order to attract the provisions of Section 123, and to fasten the burden on the person possessing the goods, the items in question, that is the Black Pepper and Peas should have been properly Notified by the Government, which does not seem to be the case here. The statement of the Minister in the Parliament and Press Conference briefings not carry any statutory weight unless the goods are notified. Thus, the Black Pepper and Peas are not covered by any Notification and hence they are not subject to the provisions of Section 123. Therefore, the onus to prove that the goods are of foreign origin, is on the Customs Officials. From the Show Cause Notice and Order in Original, it is seen that the Picture of the Gunny / Woven bags are reproduced with the printed matter of “Rose Brand 5MM Jumbo” and “Sanchit Black Pepper 5MM Best Quality”. Obviously, these are the Brand Names - There is nothing to suggest that the Customs Officials have made any enquiry to know as to who the owner of these Brands is and where the factories are located. Another way of ascertaining the origin would be to get the goods tested by approved / empanelled Testing Agency to check the quality of the goods to prove as to whether such goods are of Indian or are of foreign origin. No such attempt has been made by the Customs officials. In the present case, the goods are not notified in terms of Section 123. The Revenue has not brought in any evidence towards the foreign origin of the goods. The goods have been seized within the territory of India in Muzaffarpur and are not a seizure at the border but is in the nature of Town seizure. All these factual details would lead to the conclusion that the ratio of the cited case laws would be squarely applicable. The confiscation, consequent redemption fine and penalties are not warranted - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether Black Pepper and Green Peas seized in transit are 'notified' goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 so as to cast the burden of proving non-smuggled origin on the persons from whose possession the goods were seized. 2. If the goods are not notified under Section 123, whether the Revenue discharged the onus of proving that the seized consignments were of foreign (third country) origin and smuggled into India. 3. Whether documentary anomalies, allegedly fabricated invoices and post facto e-way bills suffice, in the absence of proof of foreign origin, to justify confiscation, redemption fines and penalties under the Customs Act. 4. Whether interception and seizure at an inland location (town seizure) distant from the border can, without more, sustain a finding of smuggling from across the Indo-Nepal border. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Applicability of Section 123: Legal framework Section 123 creates a statutory burden-shifting rule: where goods seized under reasonable belief of being smuggled fall within classes notified by Central Government (explicitly gold, watches, and 'any other class' by notification), the burden to prove non-smuggled origin lies on the possessor/owner; otherwise the burden remains on the Customs Officials to prove foreign origin. Precedent Treatment The Tribunal has followed prior decisions holding that non-notified goods attract the departmental burden to prove smuggling; comparable decisions treating betel nut/black pepper as non-notified have required the Revenue to adduce cogent evidence of foreign origin. Interpretation and reasoning The Court examined the record and submissions as to whether Black Pepper and Green Peas were notified. Parliamentary statements and administrative measures (MIP, DGFT/Ministry press statements) were relied on by Revenue to show regulatory attention to pepper imports, but the Court held such statements lack statutory force to constitute notification under Section 123. No Gazette notification under Section 123 was produced. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Where no statutory notification under Section 123 exists, the statutory burden remains on Customs to prove foreign origin; administrative pronouncements or MIP regulations do not suffice to shift burden under Section 123. Conclusion The goods were not notified under Section 123; therefore the onus to prove foreign origin remained with the Customs Officials. Issue 2 - Whether Revenue proved foreign (third country) origin and smuggling: Legal framework For non-notified goods, proof of foreign origin requires cogent evidentiary foundation: documentary evidence, statements, physical markings traceable to foreign manufacturer/packager, accredited laboratory testing, or reliable chain-of-custody/transport evidence establishing importation from abroad. Precedent Treatment Prior Tribunal decisions cited emphasize that local trade opinions, non-accredited test reports or mere brand names on bags without provenance do not constitute adequate proof of foreign origin; the Revenue must present concrete evidence linking the goods to smuggling or foreign manufacture. Interpretation and reasoning The Court evaluated the evidentiary matrix: (a) absence of licit import documents for black pepper; (b) presence of printed brand names on gunny bags ('ROSE BRAND 5 MM JUMBO', 'SANCHIT BLACK PEPPER ...') without manufacturer/address or provenance; (c) allegedly fabricated invoices and e-way bills with post-interception timestamps; (d) statements under Section 108 asserting import via Bhimnagar and pilotage; (e) Toll receipts and transport statements suggesting movement inconsistent with invoice claims. The Court found that brand markings alone, without enquiries to identify brand ownership or empanelled testing to determine origin, are insufficient. Further, statements and documentary anomalies, while prima facie suspicious, do not constitute conclusive proof of third-country origin when the statutory burden rests on Revenue. The fact that the seizure occurred at Muzaffarpur (approx. 216 km from Bhimnagar) rendered the seizure a town seizure; the record did not establish the initial smuggling route or actors at the border. Even where invoices/e-way bills appear fabricated or amended, such infirmities cannot substitute for positive proof of foreign origin under Customs law and thus cannot sustain confiscation under Sections 111(b), 111(h), 115(2) absent such proof. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: In cases of non-notified goods, suspicion, fabricated or post-dated domestic documents, and brand inscriptions on packaging without provenance or accredited testing do not discharge the departmental burden to prove foreign origin and smuggling; absence of border seizure weakens inference of importation across the border. Conclusion The Revenue failed to bring conclusive evidence that the seized Black Pepper and Green Peas were of foreign (third country) origin or smuggled into India; consequently confiscation, redemption fines and penalties under the Customs Act were unsupported. Issue 3 - Effect of documentary anomalies, post facto e-way bills and transport evidence: Legal framework Documentary evidence (invoices, e-way bills, GST records, toll receipts, statements) can support an inference of illegality but cannot replace statutory proof of foreign origin where Section 123 burden lies on the Revenue. Forensic testing and provenance tracing are relevant to establish origin. Precedent Treatment Tribunal authorities have held that fabricated or doubtful invoices may implicate parties under other statutes (GST, penal law) but do not automatically justify customs confiscation unless foreign origin is proved. Non-accredited testing and local trade opinion lack sufficient probative value to prove smuggling. Interpretation and reasoning The Court acknowledged documentary anomalies: post-interception issuance timestamps for e-way bills, GST place-of-business amendments, contradictory transport statements and toll receipts. However, it distinguished between documentary falsity (relevant to other statutory/regulatory offences) and the specific requirement under Customs law to prove origin. The adjudicatory process did not include enquiries to ascertain brand proprietorship or empanelled testing to link goods to foreign source. Thus anomalies were insufficient to sustain customs confiscation. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Fabricated invoices, after-the-fact e-way bills and transport inconsistencies, without corroborative proof of foreign origin (testing, provenance, border interception evidence), cannot alone sustain confiscation and penalties under Customs law for non-notified goods. Conclusion Documentary irregularities, though suspicious, did not discharge the Revenue's statutory burden and therefore could not sustain the impugned confiscation, redemption fines and penalties under the Customs Act. Issue 4 - Significance of town seizure versus border seizure: Legal framework Seizure within internal territory (town seizure) requires the Revenue to prove the chain of importation from abroad; an inland seizure, without clear linkage to cross-border smuggling, weakens presumption of smuggling. Precedent Treatment Tribunal decisions have held that town seizures, absent cogent proof of foreign importation, cannot be equated to border seizures and cannot justify shifting of burden or automatic presumption of smuggling. Interpretation and reasoning The seizure occurred at Muzaffarpur, significantly distant from the alleged border town. The record did not establish who smuggled the goods across the border, or where and when such cross-border diversion occurred. Recorded statements did not contain clear admissions by appellants of procurement from Nepal. Consequently, the town-seizure character made it incumbent upon the Revenue to furnish positive proof of foreign origin, which was not done. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Inland/town seizure cannot, by itself, justify confiscation for smuggling without evidence establishing cross-border importation; the Revenue must prove the connection to foreign origin in town seizures of non-notified goods. Conclusion Given the town seizure and absence of proof linking the seized consignments to cross-border smuggling, the Revenue's case was deficient to support the confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act. Overall Conclusion Because Black Pepper and Green Peas were not notified under Section 123, the onus to prove foreign origin and smuggling lay on the Revenue; that burden was not discharged by brand markings, unverified testing, or documentary anomalies and inland seizure; accordingly confiscation, redemption fines and penalties under the Customs Act were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.