2001 (1) TMI 491 - AT - Customs

CEGAT Kolkata Tribunal Reverses Betelnut Smuggling Penalties, Emphasizes Need for Concrete Evidence

LAL MOHAN RAI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA

LAL MOHAN RAI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 295 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:Imposition of penalty and confiscation of truck under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on the transportation of 1100 kgs of contraband betelnuts of foreign origin in a truck.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata involved two appeals arising from a common Order-in-Appeal. The penalties imposed on the appellants, the owner of the truck and an employee of a transport firm, were challenged. The adjudicating authority held the employee to be 'in the center of the whole episode' and the owner equally guilty due to the actions of his employee. The truck was confiscated with a redemption fine, and penalties were imposed based on the findings. The appellants, dissatisfied with the first appellate stage outcome, approached the Tribunal for relief.The appellants' representative argued that there was no concrete evidence proving the betelnuts were smuggled, highlighting that betelnuts are freely available in the market and not a prohibited item under the Customs Act, 1962. He criticized the lack of tangible evidence and violation of natural justice principles due to the absence of trade opinion copies and the inability to cross-examine traders providing opinions. The owner's representative contended that instructions were given to not accept goods under legal restriction, challenging the confiscation and penalty imposition. The employee's representative emphasized his role as a mere employee at the time of booking, questioning the adverse finding and penalty imposition.The Revenue's representative reiterated the reasoning in the impugned order. Upon careful consideration, the judge found that there was no evidence demonstrating the contraband nature of the goods. Mere visual inspection was deemed insufficient to conclude smuggling, especially considering betelnuts' availability in India. The absence of positive and concrete evidence to establish the betelnuts' contraband nature led to the decision that confiscation of the truck and penalties imposed were legally incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order's sections related to confiscation and penalties were set aside, providing relief to the appellants.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata overturned the penalties and confiscation imposed on the appellants due to insufficient evidence establishing the betelnuts as contraband. The decision emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to support allegations of smuggling, highlighting the importance of legal correctness in such determinations.