2025 (8) TMI 101 - AT - Customs

Penalties Set Aside as Areca Nuts Not Prohibited Under Customs Act, No Proof of Smuggling Found

The CESTAT Kolkata held that the areca nuts seized were neither prohibited nor notified goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue failed to prove ... Absolute Confiscation - levy of redemption fine and penalty - areca nuts loaded in the detained trucks had been illegally procured from Myanmar and Indonesia without following the established norms and procedures - detention on the suspicion plying without valid documents which was clubbed vide GDE No. 697 dated 21.08.2019 - onus to prove - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the areca nuts / betel nuts, which have been seized, are neither prohibited goods nor notified goods u/s 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, it is found that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that the goods in question have been smuggled into the country by the appellants. However, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to discharge its onus of proving that the goods in question are smuggled in nature. In these circumstances, no penalty can be imposed on the appellants. Thus, no penalty is imposable on the appellants and consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellants are set aside. The impugned orders, qua imposing penalties on the appellants hereinabove, are set aside - Appeal disposed off. ISSUES: Whether the areca nuts seized are prohibited or notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the Revenue discharged the onus of proving that the seized goods were smuggled into the country.Whether penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 are imposable on the appellants in absence of proof of smuggling. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The areca nuts / betel nuts seized are neither prohibited goods nor notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.The onus lies on the Revenue to establish that the goods in question have been smuggled into the country by the appellants, which the Revenue has failed to discharge.In the absence of proof of smuggling, 'no penalty can be imposed on the appellants,' and the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) and (b) are set aside. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically Sections 111(b), 111(d), 112(a), 112(b), and 123.The Court emphasized that since the goods are not prohibited or notified under Section 123, the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to demonstrate smuggling.The Court found that the Revenue failed to prove the smuggled nature of the goods, as no foreign markings were found on the consignments and consignors' statements indicated lawful procurement from local markets.There was no doctrinal shift or dissent; the decision reaffirms the principle that penalties require proof of contravention or smuggling under the Customs Act.