1992 (8) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Appeals succeed as court finds goods from Nepal, not third-country, setting aside penalties and confiscations

The appeals challenged the Collector's order seizing Salwood for violating Notification No. 76-Cus/65. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties and ... Import of goods from Nepal - Confiscation Issues:1. Seizure of Salwood and violation of Notification No. 76-Cus/652. Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition3. Contention of the appellants regarding the applicability of the notificationAnalysis:The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise regarding the seizure of Salwood valued at Rs. 25,000 from a lorry on the grounds of violating Notification No. 76-Cus/65. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 each on the appellants, and allowed redemption of the truck on payment of a fine. The appellants contended that the notification does not apply to the case. The J.D.R. justified the order appealed against.The impugned order by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise stated that the Salwood was of Nepali origin and illegally imported, supported by the driver's statement and lack of proper documentation. The appellants did not contest these facts, and the driver's statement was deemed credible despite claims of coercion. The burden of proof was considered met by the department to establish smuggling from Nepal. However, the judgment highlighted that the goods were Nepalese, not third-country origin, as required by the notification. Therefore, the confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, and truck confiscation were set aside, allowing the appeals and granting consequential benefits to the appellants.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of Notification No. 76-Cus/65 and the origin of the seized goods. It emphasized the necessity of proving third-country origin for goods imported from Nepal to contravene the notification. The decision favored the appellants based on the lack of evidence supporting the violation of the notification, leading to the setting aside of confiscations and penalties.