AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant is disposed of accordingly." 2.1 The Customs officials of Customs Commissionerate, Lucknow recovered 80 bags of 'Posta Dana (Poppy seeds)' at Central Railway Station, Kanpur on 04.12.2021. As per the stickers of railway parcel booking office pasted on the bags, these goods were loaded from Howrah with approximate weight of 4976.4 kg. 2.2 On reasonable belief that the whole consignment was illegally brought into India through unauthorized route, it was thus liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. These goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Trade opinion was taken from 03 local traders who opined in writing that the seized goods were 'Posta Dana (Poppy seeds)' of third country origin. 2.3 M/s Om Trading Company vide letter dated 07.12.2021 requested for provisional release of the seized goods and submitted documents with regards to support legal procurement of these goods. 2.4 A statement on 14.12.2021 was recorded from Shir Kamal Verma, Proprietor of M/s Om Trading Company where he stated that he did not have any information about the country of origin of the recovered goods. He submitted the bank statement as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39, Melbuk, Dist.-Champhai, Mizoram Pin-796321 under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for illegal importation of foreign origin Poppy Seeds." 2.9 The Show Cause Notice has been adjudicated as per Order-In-Original No.48/ADC/2023-24 dated 31.05.2023 holding as follows:- "(1) I find that aforesaid setzed Posta Dana (Poppy Seeds) total 80 Bags weighing total 4976.4 Kgs. valued at Rs. 72,15,780/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty only), which has been illegally imported into India, in contravention of provisions contained in Section 7 (1) (c) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 63/94-Cus (NT) dated 21.11.1994, is liable for confiscation under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. I also order for option to redeem the aforesaid seized goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,27,635/- (Twenty Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five Only) along-with applicable duty or other taxes if any under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I also order to appropriate the security amounting to Rs. 20,27,635/- (Twenty Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five Only) deposited at the time of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....precision, but what is required is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on its basis believe in the existence of facts in the issue. Prosecution is not obliged to prove as part of its primary burden the facts which are especially within the knowledge of accused. Since smuggling is done secretly, it is impossible for preventive department to unravel every link of the process. It is for him (accused) to explain or establish those facts within his peculiar knowledge, failing which the prosecution will be entitled to take advantage of the presumption of facts arising against him, in discharge its burden of proof. f. It is very clear from the above that the learned Appellate Authority has not appreciated the facts emerged during the investigation. Further, it seems that learned Appellate Authority overlooked the detailed discussions so made by the Adjudicating Authority in Order-in-Original too. The Appellate Authority vacated confiscation of the foreign origin poppy seeds in arbitrary manner by neglecting all the evidences in contravention of the law in force. 3.1 On 25.02.2025 the Early Hearing Application was listed and vide Miscellaneo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther, I notice that the appellant has also produced the documents to show the previous trail of the transactions of the impugned goods. Ongoing through the order dated 23.07.2021 of the Superintendent, CPF, Champhai, I find that 80 bags containing 4,800 Kgs of Poppy Seeds' was provisionally released to Smt. Saikhumi, who in turn sold the said goods to M/s Muskan Trading vide several sale invoices issued during the period from 01.10.2021 to 25.11.2021. The Superintendent, CPF, Champhai vide letter dated 17.01.2022 has also confirmed the genuineness of the said order dated 23.07.2021. Smt. Saikhumi in her statement dated 21.01.2022 categorically confirmed the issuance of the said sale invoices, which is also reported by the Superintendent, CGST, Range- Champhai vide letter dated 21.01.2022. 5.5 The appellant has submitted a copy of the certificate dated 11.06.2022 issued by The Kirana Merchants Association, Kanpur' certifying that the impugned goods is being used exclusively by the catering industry to amalgamate and embellish the taste of the gravy in vegetarian & non-vegetarian food delicacies. Keeping in view of the said use of the impugned goods in food items, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etel nuts are non-notified items. However, it is an admitted fact that the betel nuts in question are grown in Assam, Meghalaya and its adjoining areas. But the Revenue could not be able to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin or smuggled. They could also not be able to produce any document relating to the smuggled activities. The whole order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been passed on mere suspicion. Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. As such, it is for the Revenue to prove by production of sufficient tangible evidence that the same had been smuggled into the country. They have not produced any evidence to this effect. Therefore, I do not find that the Customs have discharged its obligation to prove that the betel nuts in question had been smuggled into the country. In view of this, I allow the above-captioned three appeals filed by the two appellants and set aside the Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)." 4.3 Revenue do not agree with above findings recorded in the impugned order and on the grounds stated earlier have filed the present appeal. 4.4 We find that in the present case the entire case is made without su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... From perusal of the above it is quite evident that no effort has been made to establish the foreign nature or Nepali origin of the peas seized. The case proceeds on the basis of the non existence of trading relation ship between a the appellant and the persons claimed by him to be his buyers. Even if the arguments advanced in the orders of the lower authorities are to be accepted then still the smuggled nature or contravention of the provisions of the Custom Act, 1962 cannot be established. 4.6 Peas is grown in huge quantity in India and in the appellant has in his initial statement claimed to have purchased the same from local farmers. He even produced the documents of such purchase. The said claim of the appellant has been brushed aside without recording any concrete finding with regards to the Nepali Origin of the peas. Was it possible to distinguish between the peas of Indian or Nepali origin, no expert opinion on the issue has been recorded. I do not find any evidence brought on record by which it can be said that the said peas were the peas of Nepali origin. Further, I find that these goods are not even specified under Section 123 of Customs Act and hence the burden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o whether Black Pepper and Peas have been so notified, the Ld A R makes the following submissions : Indo Nepal Treaty of Trade 2009, issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry. ll. With Reference to Article II 1- lt is understood that all goods of Indian or Nepalese origin shall be allowed to move unhampered to Nepal or India respectively without being subjected to any quantitative restrictions, licensing or permit system with the following exceptions: (a) Goods restricted for export to third counties, (b) Goods subject to control on price for distribution or movement, within the domestic market, and (c) Goods prohibited for export to each other's territories to prevent deflection to third countries The said consignment was intercepted on 28.05.2019 near lndo- Nepal border In this regard, reference is relied upon the written reply given in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Piyush Goyal, as per press release dated 03.07.2019, wherein he has categorically stated, interalia that : "India is not importing pepper from Bangladesh Bhutan and Nepal. The various steps taken up by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed with the printed matter of "Rose Brand 5MM Jumbo" and "Sanchit Black Pepper 5MM Best Quality". Obviously, these are the Brand Names. The Bags do not carry any details of the manufacturer's name, their address etc. In such a case no assumption can be made about the foreign origin of these goods. There is nothing to suggest that the Customs Officials have made any enquiry to know as to who the owner of these Brands is and where the factories are located. Another way of ascertaining the origin would be to get the goods tested by approved / empanelled Testing Agency to check the quality of the goods to prove as to whether such goods are of Indian or are of foreign origin. I do not see any such attempt has been made by the Customs officials. 22. The next thing to be considered is the place of interception and seizure. Admittedly, the goods were seized at Muzaffarpur. On checking the map and location, I find that Muzaffarpur is located at a distance of about 216 KMs from Bhimnagar [the alleged town via which the smuggling is taking place]. Further, it is stated that the goods have been loaded from a godown at Bhimnagar. As to whether the goods were initially smuggled from Nep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Development Foundation, Mangalore, Karnataka to the extent of 'this resembled to the Areca Nuts of India and Nuts are good' is reliable or not? (d) Whether documents relating to transit of seized goods are doubtful or suspicious or not. 26. Respondents have relied on two decisions namely Santosh Kumar Murarkaj vs. Union of India and others (cited supra) and Commissioners of Customs vs. Sir Rajendra Sethiya (cited supra), they are not assisting in view of the fact that there is no detailed discussion or analysis insofar as the word 'reason to believe' and how it has to be dealt with, therefore, the cited decisions are not assisting the respondents. On the other hand, petitioner who has cited decisions on the point of reasons to believe cited supra assist his case. Consequently, assigning reasons or grounds is mandatory while preparing seizure memo. Further, it is to be noted when driver of the truck was having certain documents like invoice and transportation documents, the same has not been reflected in the impugned seizure memo to the extent of its genuineness or any opinion on those material information and he has totally side tracked. On this score itself, the....