1991 (10) TMI 151 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds confiscation of foreign goods, reduces penalty; stresses burden of proof in customs cases

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of notified goods of foreign origin but reduced the penalty imposed on the respondent to Rs. 5,000 for non-notified ... Smuggled goods - Burden of proof Issues:1. Confiscation of electronic goods of foreign origin by Customs authorities.2. Burden of proof on the respondent regarding the origin of the goods.3. Verification of bills and expert opinion on the origin of goods.4. Applicability of licensing policies on import of goods.5. Reduction of penalty imposed on the respondent.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order of confiscation of electronic goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 33,600/- seized from the respondent's business premises. The Deputy Collector of Customs absolutely confiscated the goods under Sec. 111(d)/111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal against the confiscation order, leading to the Department's appeal before the Tribunal.2. The Department argued that the notified goods were of Japanese origin, and the respondent failed to prove the licit acquisition and possession of the goods. The respondent produced bills, but the Department contended that they did not relate to the seized goods. For non-notified goods, the burden of proof was shifted to the respondent due to the quantity and import restrictions.3. The respondent claimed that some goods were of Indian origin based on bills produced. The Department allegedly did not verify the bills properly. An expert opinion was provided by a mechanic during the case proceedings, stating that all items were of Indian origin. The authenticity of bills and expert opinions was questioned.4. The Tribunal analyzed each item individually. For notified goods, the respondent's bill for Indian origin goods did not match the seized goods' details. The burden of proof remained on the respondent, and the mere production of a bill was deemed insufficient. For non-notified goods, the respondent was given the benefit of doubt for some items but not for others due to import restrictions and lack of evidence of licit acquisition.5. The penalty imposed on the respondent was reduced to Rs. 5,000 for non-notified goods due to the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with modifications to the penalty amount, maintaining the confiscation of notified goods and applying import regulations to non-notified goods.This judgment highlights the importance of proving the origin and licit acquisition of goods in customs cases, the burden of proof on the parties involved, and the significance of expert opinions and proper verification of documents in legal proceedings.