TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., dated 28-10-2014. All these appeals were also called and are taken up for disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that : "2.1 The driver of the truck Shri Kamta Prasad in his statement dated 16-2-2013 stated that the betel nuts loaded on his truck was of foreign origin, that they were loaded on the truck at Bangaon, West Bengal situated about 6-7 km, from Bangladesh Border in West Bengal and that the goods were destined to Kanal Road, Nayaganj, Kanpur. A transport bilti bearing No. 0087, dated 14-2-2013 of Maa Tara Transport Company, 2 Roop Chand Ray Street, 3rd floor, Kolkata-7 and invoice No. SUT/CR/319, dated 14-2-2013 of M/s. Sukanya Traders, 178 MG Road 4th floor, Room No.-139, Kolkata-7 issued in favour of M/s. Pitamber....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hop No. 1, P No. 98 Mundka, New Delhi was known to him. 2.4 Shri Pankaj Katt Roy authorized representative of M/s. PB Shipping & Agency Pvt. Ltd. appeared before Superintendent of Customs, Preventive and Intelligence, HQRS Kolkata in his statement dated 15-3-2013 stated that they are the Clearing Agent for Sukanya Traders, 178, MG Road, 4th floor, Room No. 139, Kolkata-7 which is owned by Shri Dharmendra Kumar Jha and that their firm handled Bill of Entry No. 01426/16/2013, dated 31-1-2013 in respect of processed betel nuts imported from Bangladesh. He further stated that his firm was neither answerable to any of its clients nor knew as to how, when and where that goods were further transshipped to any other vehicle not listed on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscated under Sec 111, why the vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 115 of Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed on the people involved in the act of smuggling. The ld. Adjudicator considering the facts of the case, defence reply and the records observed that the goods were illegally imported and loaded on the vehicles while taking help from Bill of Entry No. 01426/16/2013, dated 31-1-2013 as goods on the truck were found to be different from those imported at LCS and there was no proof that same goods were transshipped to Indian vehicle after import from Bangladesh. It was also observed that there was a great time lag between import of the goods and onward transshipment for Delhi. Accordingly goods and vehicle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we found adulterated and were calling under Item No. 2.12 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products, Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, which pertain to proprietary food which have not been standardized under these Regulations. That due to a time gap of nearly two months from the date of import to the date of testing resulted into adulteration of goods with insect and fungal infectation. That same appellate authority under Order-in-Appeal No. 838/Pat/Cus./ Appeal/2014, dated 9-9-2014, in the case of Additional Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna v. Akhilesh Kumar and Others, in Para 5 held that after a gap between similar two tests there could be deterioration of betel nuts that the said order dated 9-9-2014 has not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....means that goods seized were not covered by the bill of entry furnished. Learned AR therefore, strongly defended the order passed by the first appellate authority. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is whether or not cut betel nuts seized by the Revenue on 17-2-2013 are smuggled and are liable to confiscation for violation of the provisions of 111(c), 111(i) and 111(k) of the Customs Act, 1962. First appellate authority has given following reasoning in Para-16 of her order dated 28-10-2014. (i) "Seizure was made on 17-2-2013 and samples were taken. Import sample was taken on 31-1-2013. These samples were different. Imported betel nut was not found to be same. It prove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der-in-Appeal No. 838/Pat/Cus./Appeal/2014, dated 9-9-2014, in the case of Additional Commissioner of Customs, Patna v. Shri Akhilesh Kumar and others; that there could be a difference in the test reports of the samples drawn after a time gap. In the present proceedings a time lag of more than two months may lead to different test reports regarding adulteration by insects and fungal growth. Other reasons given by the first appellate authority to reject the appeals of the appellants are based on presumptions without any positive evidence. Even if it is presumed that cut betel nuts imported and betel nuts seized are different then also there is no evidence with the department that seized goods are of foreign origin and smuggled. Betel nuts is....