Confiscation of peas and truck quashed as Revenue fails burden under Sections 123 and 108 Customs Act

CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside confiscation of peas and the truck, as well as related duty demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that peas are not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act; hence the burden of proof lay on the Revenue to establish their Nepali origin and smuggled nature. No expert opinion, investigation, or corroborative evidence was produced to show foreign origin, and mere statements under Section 108 could not suffice without corroboration. In the absence of proof of smuggling, confiscation of goods and vehicle, and consequential duty and penalties, were held unsustainable in law and thus quashed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the seized peas were proved to be of Nepali/foreign smuggled origin so as to justify their confiscation under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

1.2 In the absence of notification under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 for peas, on whom lay the burden of proving the foreign/smuggled nature of the seized goods, and whether such burden was discharged by the Department.

1.3 What was the evidentiary value and permissible use of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in establishing the smuggled/foreign origin of the seized peas.

1.4 Whether confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) on the appellants could be sustained once the smuggled nature of peas was not established.

1.5 Whether the direction to recover customs duty and appropriate security amounts/redemption fine in respect of the peas and truck could survive if confiscation itself was unsustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Proof of Nepali/foreign smuggled origin of peas; applicability of Section 123; burden of proof

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal noted that peas are not goods notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Under Section 123(1)-(2), the reverse burden of proof applies only to gold, watches and other goods specifically notified by the Central Government. For non-notified goods, the burden lies on Customs to prove that the goods are of foreign origin and smuggled.

2.2 The Tribunal referred to a prior decision wherein it was held that black pepper and peas were not notified goods under Section 123 and, therefore, Section 123 did not apply and the burden to establish foreign origin remained on the Department.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Tribunal found that there was nothing on record to establish that the seized peas were of Nepali origin. Peas are grown in large quantity within India and no examination, expert opinion, or any other scientific or objective test had been obtained to certify that the peas were of Nepali origin.

2.4 The seizure took place within Indian territory, away from the actual border, and there was no independent evidence of cross-border movement of the specific consignment, nor identification of any smuggling route, nor identification of persons who allegedly brought the goods from Nepal into India.

2.5 The Tribunal emphasized that, because peas are not notified under Section 123, it was "incumbent upon the revenue authorities to establish the Nepali origin of the seized peas," and that this evidentiary burden had not been discharged.

2.6 The Tribunal relied upon its earlier decision (quoted at length) to reiterate that, in the absence of a proper statutory notification under Section 123, mere references to trade treaties, policy documents, parliamentary answers, or general suspicion of smuggling cannot substitute for proof of foreign origin. Statements or public remarks of Ministers and general monitoring measures were held not to have statutory force sufficient to alter the burden of proof prescribed by Section 123.

2.7 The Tribunal also endorsed the reasoning in the earlier case that Customs must make positive enquiries (e.g., regarding brand ownership, manufacturer location, or laboratory testing to determine origin), and that failure to conduct such enquiries undermines any claim that the goods are of foreign origin.

Conclusions

2.8 The Tribunal held that the Department had failed to prove that the seized peas were of Nepali or foreign origin and, therefore, failed to establish that they were "smuggled goods" under the Customs Act.

2.9 Consequently, the confiscation of 520 bags of peas under Section 111(b) could not be sustained and was set aside.

Issue 3: Evidentiary value of Section 108 statements in proving smuggled/foreign origin

Legal framework (as discussed)

3.1 The Tribunal noted that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible as substantive evidence in proceedings concerning illicit import of goods, and referred to several Supreme Court decisions (including K.I. Pavunny, Illias, and Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd.). These decisions affirm that:

(a) Confessional statements, if voluntary and truthful, can form the sole basis of conviction.

(b) Customs officers are not "police officers" for purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and confessional statements to them are not rendered inadmissible on that ground.

(c) Such statements, even if inculpatory, must be scrutinized carefully, like confessions made to non-police personnel.

Interpretation and reasoning

3.2 The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant No.1 had, in his Section 108 statement, admitted purchase of peas from Nepal on cash payment without documents. However, it stressed that reliance on such a statement is permissible "only to the extent it establishes the facts of the case and is corroborated by other evidences."

3.3 The Tribunal held that the Department had not conducted any investigation or gathered corroborative material to establish the foreign/smuggled nature of the peas beyond the bare admission. No documentary, expert, or physical evidence corroborated the assertion of Nepali origin.

3.4 The Tribunal also observed that the later plea of Indian origin by appellant No.1, unsupported by any documentary proof, appeared to be an afterthought; nonetheless, the absence of corroborative evidence from the Department regarding foreign origin meant the statutory burden remained undischarged.

3.5 The Tribunal clarified that admissibility of Section 108 statements does not dispense with the Department's obligation, in cases of non-notified goods, to affirmatively establish foreign origin by independent evidence. Statements alone, without such corroboration, were held insufficient to conclusively prove the smuggled nature of peas in this case.

Conclusions

3.6 While affirming the admissibility in principle of Section 108 statements and their potential evidentiary weight, the Tribunal concluded that, in the facts of this case, such statements could not by themselves establish the Nepali origin or smuggled character of the peas, given the complete absence of corroborative investigation or evidence.

Issue 4: Validity of confiscation of truck under Section 115(2) and penalties under Section 112(b)

Interpretation and reasoning

4.1 The truck was confiscated under Section 115(2) as a conveyance used for transporting smuggled goods. The Tribunal held that when the foundational finding of smuggling (i.e., that the peas were smuggled from Nepal) is not proved and confiscation of the goods is set aside, the consequential confiscation of the conveyance cannot survive.

4.2 The Tribunal further noted that, even while upholding confiscation of the truck, the appellate authority below had already set aside the penalty on the truck owner/driver under Section 112(b) for lack of evidence of connivance. This inconsistency reinforced the fragility of the finding regarding the alleged smuggling.

Conclusions

4.3 Since the confiscation of peas was set aside, the Tribunal also set aside the confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2).

4.4 Penalties imposed on appellant No.1 under Section 112(b), which were premised on the alleged smuggling of peas, were also set aside.

Issue 5: Sustainability of duty demand and appropriation of security/redemption fine after setting aside confiscation

Interpretation and reasoning

5.1 The appellate authority below had upheld appropriation of the security amount deposited against redemption fine and held that the owner of the goods was required to pay applicable duty and other charges on the peas, on the premise that confiscation and smuggled nature were established.

5.2 The Tribunal held that once the very basis for confiscation-i.e., the finding that peas were smuggled/foreign-origin goods-is set aside, the consequential demand of customs duty and related financial consequences, including appropriation of security towards redemption fine premised on such confiscation, cannot be sustained.

Conclusions

5.3 With the confiscation of peas and truck set aside, the Tribunal also set aside the duty liability and all consequential financial demands, including redemption fine-based appropriations and penalties related to such confiscation.

5.4 The impugned order was held to be without merit and the appeals were allowed in entirety.

---