TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter, for short, referred together as 'the appellants') assailing the Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-PAX-APP-1329 & 1330/18-19 dated 29.03.2019 (referred to, as 'the impugned order') passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Customs Zone-III, Mumbai. 2.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below : 2.2 The Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) of CSI Airport Customs Commissionerate, Mumbai had developed an intelligence that some unknown persons are bringing consignments of foreign brand cigarettes from North-East to Mumbai, which were earlier smuggled into India from Myanmar, and these cigarettes do not conform with the legal requirements under Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Adve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he cigarettes, the AIU Customs had on reasonable belief that the same were smuggled into India in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 read with COPTA, had seized the said consignment imported cigarettes for further investigation. Statements were recorded from various persons involved in the said import including S/Shri Sarup Singh (alias Shri Shibi) driver of Shri Manish Naobatram Gupta, Sunil Subramanian, owner of the shop M/s Megha Collection dealing with sale of cigarettes, among other items perfumes, chocolates, ladies hand bags, gift items etc., Suneesh A.K., employee of Sunil Subramanian. The investigation revealed that on the instructions of Shri Manish Naobatram Gupta, his driver/assistant Shri Sarup Singh on whose name the cargo was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of 1962, vide Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2018. Being aggrieved with the original order, the appellants had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who by upholding the order of the original authority had rejected the appeals filed by the appellants vide Order-in-Appeal dated 29.03.2019 which is impugned herein. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have filed these appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The additional submissions made in the form written paper books in this case was also perused carefully. 4. The short issue for determination before the Tribunal is whether the imposition of penalty on the appellants consequent to confiscation of impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable,- (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater;..... Plain reading of the above legal provisions clearly indicate that imported goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, only if 'import' of such goods are prohibited or contrary to the prohibition imposed under the relevant legislation is in force. Similarly, if the imported goods are found concealed in any package so as to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of Section 123 of the Act of 1962 are as follows: "Burden of proof in certain cases. Section 123. (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be- (a) in a case where such seizure is made from the possession of any person,- (i) on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; and (ii) if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also on such other person; (b) in any other case, on the person, if any, who claims to be the owner of the goods so seized. (2) This section shall apply to gold, and manufa....