Unauthorized removal of warehoused goods on a mismatched Out of Charge document was upheld after admissions and record evidence.

Warehoused mobile phones were found to have been removed on the strength of an Out of Charge document that did not pertain to the detained goods. After detention under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 following objections over duplicate IMEI numbers, the record showed that only part of the consignment was lawfully cleared. Admissions by the appellant's officials that the release occurred without proper verification were treated as substantive evidence of unauthorized removal, and no credible material was produced to show bona fide conduct or to displace the adjudicating authority's findings. The impugned order was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to relief against the finding that warehoused mobile phones were removed on the basis of an unauthorized and manipulated 'Out of Charge' document, and whether the order upholding the adjudication required interference.

Analysis: The goods were detained and directed to be warehoused under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 after objection by the brand owner regarding duplicate IMEI numbers. The record showed that only part of the consignment was legitimately cleared, while the detained packets were later removed from the warehouse on the strength of an 'Out of Charge' document that did not relate to those detained goods. The statements of the appellant's officials contained admissions that the release had been effected without proper verification of the document and that the removal was unauthorized. Those admissions were treated as substantive evidence, and no credible material was produced to establish bona fide conduct or to dislodge the adjudicating authority's findings.

Conclusion: The finding that the detained goods were improperly removed on the basis of unauthorized documents was upheld, and no interference with the impugned order was warranted.

---