CESTAT quashes peas confiscation, holds burden under s.123 unmet, sets aside penalties under s.112 Customs Act

CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside confiscation of seized peas and penalties under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that peas are not specified goods under s.123, so the burden to prove smuggled nature lay entirely on the department. Evidence showed even the Market Assistant admitted it was not possible to distinguish Indian from Nepali peas, and no expert test or reliable material established foreign origin. Relying on earlier Tribunal precedent, CESTAT held that mere doubts or transaction anomalies cannot sustain confiscation without proof of foreign origin, and thus the impugned order was without merit.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the seized peas were proved to be of Nepali/foreign origin and smuggled so as to warrant confiscation under the Customs Act.

1.2 Whether the burden of proving the smuggled/foreign origin of peas lay on the person in possession or on the Department in light of Section 123 of the Customs Act.

1.3 Whether, in the absence of proof of smuggled nature of the goods, penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act could be sustained.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Proof of foreign/smuggled origin of peas and burden of proof under Section 123

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal examined Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding "burden of proof in certain cases" and noted that the section applies only to (a) gold, (b) watches, and (c) any other class of goods notified by the Central Government.

2.2 The Tribunal noted that peas are not specified under Section 123 nor shown to be notified by the Central Government for the purposes of that section. Hence, the general rule applies that the burden to prove foreign/smuggled nature of such goods lies on the Department.

2.3 The Tribunal also referred to and relied upon the reasoning in a prior decision of the Kolkata Bench holding that, for non-notified goods such as black pepper and peas, the onus to establish foreign origin is entirely on Customs and that mere policy documents, parliamentary replies or press releases do not have statutory effect unless followed by proper notification.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.4 The goods (peas) were intercepted and seized within Indian territory (Ram Leela Maidan near the Indo-Nepal border). The Tribunal observed that seizure inside India, at a distance from the border, requires evidence of illicit import to invoke confiscation provisions.

2.5 The Tribunal considered the statement of the Market Assistant, Agriculture Production Mandi Committee, who categorically stated that there is no discernible difference between Indian peas and Nepali peas and that he could not identify any distinguishing feature; the gate pass was issued treating the peas as Indian.

2.6 On that basis, the Tribunal held that there was no material on record to show how Customs had identified these peas as of Nepali origin, nor any attempt to obtain expert opinion, testing, or any other scientific or objective basis to distinguish origin.

2.7 The Tribunal noted that the departmental finding branding the mandi documents as being used "in disguise of Indian peas" was not supported by any cogent evidence of foreign origin or smuggling; at best, it indicated suspicion about the documents but did not discharge the statutory burden to prove smuggling.

2.8 Applying the legal principles from the cited precedent, the Tribunal held that, for non-notified goods like peas, Customs must conclusively prove that the goods are of foreign origin and are smuggled. This was not done; there was no admission by any person that the peas were illicitly brought from Nepal, no enquiry into origin by testing or tracing supply chain, and no other positive evidence of cross-border movement.

Conclusions

2.9 Peas are not notified under Section 123; therefore, the burden to prove that they were smuggled/foreign origin lay on the Department, not on the appellant.

2.10 The Department failed to bring any reliable evidence on record to establish that the seized peas were of Nepali origin or illicitly imported from Nepal, whether by expert testing, documentary trail, or admission.

2.11 Consequently, the confiscation of peas on the basis that they were smuggled/foreign origin, under the Customs Act and the cited notifications, could not be sustained.

Issue 3: Sustainability of penalties under Section 112 in absence of valid confiscation

Interpretation and reasoning

3.1 The Tribunal noted that penalties on the appellant had been imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the premise that the goods were smuggled and liable to confiscation.

3.2 Having found that the Department failed to establish the smuggled/foreign nature of the peas and that confiscation itself could not be upheld, the foundational requirement for imposition of penalty under Section 112 was held to be absent.

Conclusions

3.3 With confiscation of the peas held unsustainable for lack of proof of smuggling, the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant also could not be sustained and were required to be set aside.

3.4 The impugned appellate order upholding confiscation of the goods and penalty on the appellant was held to be without merit and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---