2004 (6) TMI 199 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Overturns Order: No Evidence of Smuggling Betel Nuts; Penalties and Confiscation Unjustified.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing all appeals in favor of the appellants. It found no concrete evidence to prove the betel nuts ... Seizure of betel nuts - Confiscation of truck and Penalty - revocation of Bank Guarantee - HELD THAT:- The seized betel nuts were examined by the Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Research Centre, Kahikuchi, Guwahati which reported that the seized betel nuts were the product of Brahmputra Valley region and its neighbouring countries i.e. Burma, Thailand, China. It is clear from the above examination that the betel nuts were not from the foreign origin but grown in Brahmputra valley. The Commissioner (Appeals), Patna, has admitted in his order that 'There can no second opinion that some quantity of betel nuts are being grown in Assam, Meghalaya in the nearby Guwahati area or Jalpaiguri etc...'. It is admitted fact of the Revenue that the Betel nuts are being grown in Assam, Meghalaya or its adjoining area. The Revenue could not able to establish that the seized betel nuts were of foreign origin or smuggled. They could not able to produce any documents relating to smuggling activities. The whole order of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on mere suspicion, suspicion whatsoever strong may be, but it cannot take the place of proof. Similar view has been expressed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ganesh Pd. Agarwal v. Commissioner of Customs [2000 (9) TMI 506 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA] and in the case of Dinanath Maurya v. Commissioner of Customs, [2000 (11) TMI 580 - CEGAT, KOLKATA]. Thus, it is clear that the seized betel nuts were not restricted commodities and the burden was cast upon Revenue to establish that the Betel nuts were smuggled or of foreign origin. The Order of the Commissioner is based on surmises and conjecture. It is not supported by any cogent evidence. There is no iota of evidence against the appellants. As such, following the ratio of the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the confiscation of the betel nuts in question was not justified. There is no justification for confiscation of truck and imposition of personal penalties upon the appellants. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and all the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Issues involved: Seizure of betel nuts, revocation of Bank Guarantee, imposition of penalties on individuals, confiscation of truck.Summary:The appeals were filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Patna, involving the seizure of 15,800 kgs. of betel nuts, revocation of a Bank Guarantee, and imposition of penalties on various individuals. The appellants challenged this order.The case involved the interception of a truck carrying betel nuts suspected to be of foreign origin smuggled from Nepal. The betel nuts were found in the truck, and subsequent examinations indicated they were from the Brahmputra Valley region and neighboring countries. The appellants argued that the charge of illegal import required corroborative evidence, which was lacking in this case. They contended that the goods were purchased from local traders and not proven to be smuggled.The Commissioner of Customs, Patna, imposed penalties based on the driver's admission of the betel nuts' foreign origin. However, the Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence to establish the betel nuts were smuggled or of foreign origin. The Commissioner's decision was deemed to be based on suspicion and conjecture, lacking substantial proof.Relying on previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that the confiscation of the betel nuts and the penalties imposed were not justified. The order was set aside, and all appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.