2000 (5) TMI 379 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in Customs Act dispute. Burden of proof on Customs not met. Confiscation order annulled.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a dispute over the confiscation of seized diesel engines under the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof ... Imported goods - Wrong accountal Issues:- Dispute over confiscation of seized diesel engines under Customs Act, 1962.- Allegation of illegal importation and penalties imposed on the firm and partners.- Burden of proof on the department to establish illegal importation.- Examination of evidence and arguments to determine the legality of the importation.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the confiscation of 54 diesel engines seized from M/s. Parda Motors under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with penalties imposed on the firm and its partners. The appellants contended that the burden of proving legal importation lay on the Customs department. The Commissioner found irregularities in the accountal of the engines, leading to the conclusion of illicit importation based on discrepancies in physical stock, deficient documentation, and non-existent suppliers.The Tribunal examined various judgments emphasizing the burden of proof on the department in cases where no specific provisions shift the burden to the noticee. It was noted that efforts to investigate the sellers through bank records were insufficient to establish non-existence. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's guidelines on establishing illegal importation based on circumstantial evidence and the concept of 'smuggled goods' under the Customs Act.The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the seized engines as freely importable goods not warranting confiscation under Sec. 111(d) solely based on accounting errors. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal reiterated that documentary irregularities do not negate claims of licit acquisition. Despite the Customs' allegations of non-existent suppliers, the burden of proof remained on the department, which failed to establish a prima facie case of illegal importation.Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding the department had not proven illegal importation, leading to the annulment of the confiscation order and associated penalties. The appeals were allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants.