TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be of 3rd country origin at 10.30 hrs on 28.05.2019 at Hajipur .The driver of the intercepted car, Shri Abhishek Kumar Jha,in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 stated Peas was coming from Bhimnagar Border upto its destination at Patna. As per instruction over phone by Rohit Kumar he met the driver of the said truck near Phulparas, he escorted the truck by the car. 2. The driver of the truck could not produce any licit documents related to import of black pepper. He produced a copy of Bill of Supply bearing invoice no GST/3/2019-20 dated 27.06.2019 issued by M/s Balaji Sales (Noticee no.2 represented by Proprietor Rohit Kumar), Supaul in favour of M/s Ivanka Traders, Gaya for sale of 10,000 Kgs of peas.Thereafter, the consignment of the alleged smuggled Black Pepper and Green Peas of country origin and the truck & car were seized on reasonable belief that contraband black pepper and green peas being transported. 3. Thereafter a Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2019 was issued against seven persons including Rohit Kumar(Noticee No.2) in terms of provisions of Notification 09/96, Cus [N.T) dated 22.01.1996 and section 7,11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....district of Sitamarhi. (6) In view of the supply of the peas Pupri, Noticee 2 has unloadedd the Peas and 4 Tons of Black Pepper was loaded in the same truck in the morning of 14.04.2019. (7) Invoice No. 1 dated 27.05.2019 from Keshari Brothers had been issued toRohit and vide this invoice he has sold Black Pepper to M/s Balaji Sales, Patna(Noticee No.2). 10. The Ld Advocate relies on the following case laws : (a) R. Lalmawizuali @Amawii,MD Samim Uddin, Shri Amit Kumar Jaiswal Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Shilong reported in CESTAT Final order no. 75582-75584/2024. (b) Maa Lilori Bhander Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata in CESTAT final order no. 75169- 75170/2023 dated 27.03.2023. (c) Shanti Biswas Vs. Commissioner of customs (Preventive), CGST & Central excise Lucknow reported in CESTAT Final order no. 70177 dated 20.10.2023 11. As per the Learned Advocate, in view of the above submissions on factual details and the cited case laws, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside and the appeals filed by the appellants may be allowed. 12. The Ld. A R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue makes the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a City and by M/s. Balaji Sales, Patna regarding purported purchase / sale and transportation of the seized goods from Patna to Supaul. (6) Further, invoice No. GST/ 3 / 2019-20 dated 27.05.2019 issued by M/s. Balaji Sales, Patna GSTIN 10COUPK0231F2ZO issued for STOCK TRANSFER to. M/s. Balaji Sales, Supaul GSTIN 10COUPK0231F2ZO does not appear legal and proper as on the date i.e. 27.05.2019, there was no principal or additional place of business mentioned against GSTIN-10COUPK0231F2ZO of Balaji Sales at Patna (Bihar). In an afterthought to cover-up the smuggling activity, there was an amendment made by way of adding additional place of business in Supaul, Bihar by the GSTIN-10COUPK0231F2ZO on 22.06.2019. (7) Moreover, e-way bill No. 871053823658 dated 28.05.2019, was found issued by M/s. Keshri Brothers, Marufganj, Patna City was found issued at 03.07 P.M. i.e. about 05 hours after interception of the vehicle. Likewise, e-way bill No.811053849544 dated 28.05.2019, issued by M-/s. Balaji Sales Patna was found to have been issued at 04.49 P.M. i.e. more than 06 hours after interception of the vehicle. (8) Keshari Brothers has already issued invoices from SI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions, which are extracted below : Section 123 in the Customs Act, 1962 123. Burden of proof in certain cases. (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 manufactures thereof, watches, and any other class of goods which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify. 17. A careful reading of the above provisions clarifies that the goods in question pertain to, (a) Gold (b) Watches (c) Any other class of goods which the Central Govt may notify, the officials, can have a reasonable beli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notification dated 21/3/2018. Some representations regarding smuggling of low priced black pepper from other origin to Indio through Nepal and Bangladesh border were received. In this regard, the field formation of Customs and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence have been alert and made vigilant at the point of entry in the port to detect and prevent entry of inferior quality pepper, from other counties to India. Customs has booked several cases of attempted smuggling of pepper in the recent past Source: DGCI&S Kolkata/DLI from Customs provided by the Spices Board of India 20. The above details provided by the Revenue only go on to show that some restrictions have been placed on the Minimum Import Price and the situation is being monitored to curb smuggling of low quality Pepper into India from these countries. In order to attract the provisions of Section 123, and to fasten the burden on the person possessing the goods, the items in question, that is the Black Pepper and Peas should have been properly Notified by the Government, which does not seem to be the case here. The statement of the Minister in the Parliament and Press Conference briefings not carry an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en found to be doubtful. But the point in the present case is, unless it is proved that the goods are of foreign origin, the anomalies found in the transactions cannot implicate the appellants under Customs Act provisions, though they might get implicated under other statutory provisions. Illegality or otherwise of other statutory provisions will have no bearing on the Customs Act provisions and hence they cannot come to the rescue of the Revenue in the present case. 24. Now, I take a look at some of the case laws wherein the goods were not notified in terms of Section 123 by the Central Government. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Patna VERSUS Shri Pankaj Kumar Sharma FINAL ORDER NO......76402-76403/2023 Dated : 03 .08.2023 - CESTAT Kolkata 8. It is case booked by the revenue against the respondents that they have smuggled betel nut through truck which was intercepted and was found parked adjacent to a petrol pump, namely, Akharaghat Service Station, Kolhan Dadar, before Zero Mile on Muzaffarpur Sitamarhi Road and the same is smuggled one, but we find that the betel nut in question is neither notified items under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Affirmed by the High Court of Meghalaya 2022 (382) E.L.T. 592 (Meghalaya) C.C. (PREVENTIVE), NER REGION, SHILLONG Versus LALTANPUII 4. The Division Bench of the Tribunal recorded the finding that the confiscated betel nut is non-notified goods and therefore, burden to prove the fact of smuggling lies on the department and same has not been discharged. In this regard, the department relied upon the certificate issued by the Arecanut Research and Development Foundation, Mangalore to show that the confiscated goods/betel nuts are of foreign origin. However, the Tribunal refused to consider this certificate on the ground that the said Institution is not accredited and hence the report was not relied on. The Tribunal in this regard relied on the decision of the Patna High Court reported in 2020 (371) E.L.T. 353 (Patna). 5. After hearing the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and after going through the impugned judgment and order, we find no error in the findings given by the Tribunal. The said findings, in our opinion are supported by reasons and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. Appeal has no me....