2001 (1) TMI 494 - AT - Customs

Court emphasizes need for concrete evidence in smuggling cases, grants benefit of doubt to appellants

SHEW SUNDER SHUKLA Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA

SHEW SUNDER SHUKLA Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PREV.), WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 465 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues: Confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, determining origin of goods, burden of proof, benefit of doubt.Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties:The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from the same facts and circumstances, challenging the confiscation of Nylon Sando Gangees valued at Rs. 1,29,288.00 and imposition of penalties. The authorities below concluded that the goods were smuggled based on statements of employees and the owner, who admitted to transporting goods of foreign origin. However, the appellants argued that these statements were unreliable hearsay evidence, lacking direct proof of smuggling. The goods were non-notified under the Customs Act, placing the burden of proving smuggling on the Revenue. The advocate contended that without concrete evidence of foreign origin, confiscation based on alleged smuggling was unjustified.Determining Origin of Goods and Burden of Proof:The appellants claimed the goods were of Indian origin, supported by a joint verification report. Despite uncertainty regarding the goods' origin, the adjudicating authority deemed them foreign, citing the absence of country of origin markings as inconclusive. The advocate emphasized that establishing foreign origin was crucial before alleging smuggling. The judge concurred with the advocate's arguments, noting that the law requires more than mere foreign origin to prove goods are actually foreign. The judge highlighted that in cases of non-notified items, the Revenue must prove smuggling, a burden unmet in this instance. Consequently, the judge granted the appellants the benefit of doubt, setting aside the impugned order and allowing all three appeals with consequential reliefs.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, determining the origin of goods, burden of proof, and the benefit of doubt. The judge emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to establish foreign origin before alleging smuggling, especially for non-notified items. The decision favored the appellants, highlighting the insufficiency of hearsay evidence and the Revenue's failure to discharge the burden of proving smuggling.