2025 (4) TMI 118 - AT - Customs

Foreign liquors and goods confiscation set aside under sections 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act 1962

Shri Prakash Hiroo, Shri Mukesh Hiroo, Shri Minoo Kumar Hiroo Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Kolkata

CESTAT Kolkata set aside confiscation of foreign liquors and goods along with penalties under sections 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. The ... Confiscation of seized goods - smuggled goods or not - foreign liquors and various foreign goods - levy of penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - burden to prove u/s 123 of CA - HELD THAT:- It is seen that for the appeal filed by Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo, the order of confiscation of the goods has been set aside. The penalty imposed on the co-accused viz. Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo for the same offence has also been set aside - It is observed from the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal dated 18.02.2025 that the items are not notified items falling under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence the same are not liable for confiscation, which is equally applicable for these three appellants as well. Accordingly, the order setting aside the confiscation of the goods is applicable for these three appellants as well. As the order of confiscation in respect of the same goods seized from Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo has already been set aside vide the Order-in-Appeal dated 18.02.2025, it is found that the above findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the said order in respect of setting aside confiscation of the goods involved and setting aside the penalty on Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo is applicable for all the three appellants herein as well, as they have been penalized for the same offence. Thus, the penalties imposed on the appellants herein vide the impugned order dated 17.08.2020 for the same offence are also liable to be set aside, in view of the above findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal dated 18.02.2025 passed on the same set of facts. Hence, the penalties imposed on the three appellants herein set aside. Conclusion - Both the confiscation of goods and the penalties imposed on the appellants set aside, aligning with the findings in the related appeal of Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo. The impugned order, qua imposition of penalties and confiscation of the goods in respect of the appellants herein, is set aside - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are: Whether the goods seized from the appellants, including foreign liquors and various foreign goods, were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. Whether the penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, were justified. Whether the exoneration of Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo from penalties and confiscation in a related appeal should apply to the present appellants as well.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Liability of Goods for Confiscation- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The relevant legal provisions include Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the burden of proof in cases of goods believed to be smuggled. The legal question revolves around whether the seized goods were smuggled and thus liable for confiscation.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that in a related appeal (Order-in-Appeal dated 18.02.2025), the confiscation of similar goods from Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo was set aside. The Tribunal found that the same reasoning applied to the present appellants, as the goods were not notified items under Section 123, and the Department failed to provide evidence of smuggling.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referenced the lack of evidence presented by the Department to prove that the goods were smuggled. It was noted that the statements and corroborative evidence provided by the appellants were sufficient to discharge the burden of proof under Section 123.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the findings from the related appeal, concluding that the goods seized from the appellants were not liable for confiscation as they were not proven to be smuggled.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Department's arguments, which relied on assumptions and lacked tangible evidence, as speculative and not legally sustainable.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of goods from the appellants was unjustified and set aside the order of confiscation.2. Justification of Penalties Imposed- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The penalties were imposed under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, which pertain to penalties for improper importation of goods.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal relied on the decision in the related appeal, which set aside the penalties on Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo, finding that the same logic applied to the present appellants. The absence of evidence of smuggling negated the basis for imposing penalties.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence for smuggling and the corroborative statements supporting the appellants' claims, which were not adequately countered by the Department.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the related appeal to the current case, determining that the penalties imposed on the appellants were not sustainable.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Department's reliance on assumptions and speculative allegations, finding them insufficient to justify penalties.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the penalties imposed on the appellants were unjustified and set them aside.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The allegation that the impugned goods is smuggled one is imaginative speculations only having no independent corroboration by way of tangible evidence or independent witness which is unacceptable in law.'- Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that allegations of smuggling must be substantiated by tangible evidence and not merely assumptions or speculative assertions. The burden of proof under Section 123 must be met with credible evidence.- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside both the confiscation of goods and the penalties imposed on the appellants, aligning with the findings in the related appeal of Shri Rajiv Kumar Hiroo.In conclusion, the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, with the Tribunal setting aside the penalties and confiscation orders, providing consequential relief as per law.