2001 (11) TMI 132 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in Customs Act case, criticizes Revenue for lack of evidence

The tribunal found in favor of the appellants in a case involving the confiscation of Cordless Phones, Calculators, and a Cordless Phone Battery under the ... Confiscation Issues:- Confiscation of goods under Customs Act- Alleged smuggling of Cordless Phones and Calculators- Verification of baggage receipt for duty payment- Onus of proving smuggled character on RevenueConfiscation of Goods under Customs Act:The lower authorities had confiscated Cordless Phones, Calculators, and a Cordless Phone Battery valued at Rs. 28,320 on suspicion of being smuggled. The appellant presented evidence to support the legal import of the goods, including a baggage receipt showing duty payment on some of the items. However, the authorities did not accept the appellant's contentions, leading to the appeal.Alleged Smuggling of Cordless Phones and Calculators:The appellant argued that Cordless Phones were non-notified items and freely available in India, shifting the burden of proving smuggling onto the Revenue. The tribunal agreed, noting the lack of evidence indicating illegal importation of the Cordless Phones, especially since they were widely marketed in India by foreign companies. Regarding the Calculators, the appellant provided a baggage receipt showing duty payment by a third party, which the Revenue failed to verify or investigate further. The tribunal found the Revenue's dismissal of the receipt unjustified, especially considering the lack of detailed descriptions in such documents.Verification of Baggage Receipt for Duty Payment:The tribunal criticized the Revenue for not verifying the baggage receipt provided by the appellant, which showed duty payment on some of the goods. The lack of effort by the authorities to confirm the details or contact the individual mentioned in the receipt raised doubts about the thoroughness of the investigation and the validity of the confiscation.Onus of Proving Smuggled Character on Revenue:In the absence of concrete evidence proving the goods were smuggled, the tribunal found no merit in the lower authorities' decisions to confiscate the items. The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving the smuggled character of the goods rested on the Revenue, especially when the goods were freely available in the market and supported by legitimate documentation. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.