1990 (11) TMI 289 - AT - Customs

Customs Appeal: Penalty & Confiscation Set Aside, Burden of Proof on Department, Partial Waiver Granted

KUSUM SINGHANIA Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

KUSUM SINGHANIA Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 99 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods without legal documents for imported goods.2. Burden of proof on department for seized goods.3. Differentiation between notified and non-notified goods in seizure.4. Reasonable belief for seizure of goods.5. Appellant's argument for waiver of penalty and confiscation.6. Decision on redemption fine and penalty imposition.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the decision of the Additional Collector of Customs regarding the imposition of a penalty and confiscation of goods due to the absence of legal documents for imported goods. The appellant sought relief from the Tribunal to set aside the penalty and confiscation order pending appeal.2. The Customs officials seized foreign goods from the appellant's premises based on a search warrant, alleging illegal importation due to the lack of legal documents. The appellant contested the seizure through a show cause notice and subsequent adjudication resulted in the impugned order.3. The appellant argued that only specific items were notified goods, shifting the burden to the department to prove that non-notified goods were smuggled. The department contended that the bulk of foreign goods found at the appellant's residence, coupled with the appellant's admission of purchasing them for sale, justified the seizure.4. The Tribunal analyzed previous decisions cited by both parties to determine the burden of proof. It concluded that the burden was on the department to prove non-notified goods were smuggled, which it failed to do in this case. Therefore, goods not notified under relevant customs laws were directed to be returned to the appellant.5. The appellant's plea for waiver of penalty and confiscation due to personal circumstances, being a widow with deceased husband and children to support, was considered. The Tribunal reduced the penalty and imposed a nominal redemption fine for specific notified items.6. Finally, the Tribunal directed the release of goods not subject to penalty or confiscation, except for the notified items, which required a redemption fine. The appeal was partly allowed based on the above considerations.