1999 (3) TMI 202 - AT - Customs

Legal victory: Burden of proof shifted in customs case emphasizing credible evidence

The appeals involved the confiscation of gold biscuits with foreign markings, with the appellant claiming ownership based on genuine receipts. The Customs ... Seizure - Burden of proof Issues:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 1/96 and Order-in-Appeal No. 2/96 regarding the confiscation of gold biscuits with foreign markings, burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, ownership claim, applicability of case laws, and the credibility of evidence presented.Analysis:The appeals were consolidated as the issues were common, involving the confiscation of gold biscuits with foreign markings. The appellant claimed ownership based on a sale receipt and baggage duty receipt, while the Customs Department argued that the goods were smuggled. The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act was debated, with the appellant citing case laws to support their argument that the Department failed to provide evidence of smuggling. The appellant's explanation, backed by genuine receipts, raised doubts about the origin of the goods.The Department contended that the appellant's actions, such as delayed submission of receipts and evading summons, indicated an attempt to cover up the seizure. However, the judge noted that the Department did not present substantial evidence to prove smuggling. The judge referenced the well-settled law that initial seizure by non-Customs officers shifts the burden of proof to the Department. Lack of evidence linking the seized gold to smuggling, along with the genuineness of the receipts, favored the appellants.The judge emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Department, which failed to discredit the appellant's explanation or establish smuggling. The appellant's ownership claim, supported by the statement of another individual involved, remained unchallenged. Consequently, the Orders-in-Appeal were set aside, granting relief to the appellants. If the confiscated gold had been disposed of, the sales proceeds were to be provided to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of credible evidence and the burden of proof in cases involving customs violations.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the credibility of evidence presented by both parties, and the application of relevant case laws. The decision favored the appellants due to the lack of substantial evidence linking the seized goods to smuggling and the genuineness of the receipts provided. The judgment underscored the necessity of meeting the burden of proof in customs cases and the significance of credible explanations supported by valid documentation.