TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed on the appellants herein, under Section 112(a) and/or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- on M/s. Kalika Traders Rs. 5,00,000/- on Shri Shyamal Roy and Rs.5,00,000/- on Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaosinghka, in the order passed by the original adjudicating authority. 2. The facts in brief are that on 23.08.2019, the Customs officers of Siliguri DPU, inventorised and seized some goods from the godown of M/s. Sikkim Logistics Services, Siliguri, comprising 11,775 kgs. of Black Pepper valued at Rs. 82,42,500/-, 1500 kgs. of Dry Peas valued at Rs.60,000/-, and 250 kgs. Dry Khajur valued at Rs. 50,000/- on the reasonable belief that the said goods were of foreign origin with the allegation that no documents evidencing licit purchase of the said goods could be produced by the godown in-charge, namely, Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaoshingka. Accordingly, a seizure case vide Seizure Case was made vide No. 02/IMP/CL/CUS/SLG-DPU/CC(P)/ WB/2019-20, dated 23.08.2019, in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1. Against the spot summons dated 23.08.2019, Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaoshingka, submitted that the owner of the godown was Shri Khokan Ghosh whose phone number was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Officers were of the view that Black Pepper is freely importable subject to MIP of Rs. 500/- per Kg. (CIF), or otherwise it is prohibited for imports; it attracts duty @ 70% BCD + 10% SWS + 5% IGST (total 85.85%) under tariff item 09041130 / 09041140. Import of Dry Peas is subject to annual quota of 1.5 lakh MT as notified by DGFT subject to MIP of Rs. 200/- per kg. (CIF) and attracts duty @ 50% BCD + 10% SWS (55%) under tariff item 0713 1000. Similarly, Dry Dates attracts 200% duty under 9806 0000 as originating and exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 2.7. On completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice No. VIII(10)122/ADC/ADJ/CUS/WB/19-20/3752[P]-to-3757[P] dated 18.02.2020/19.02.2020 was issued under Section 124 of the Act proposing confiscation under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Act, as well as penalties under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Act on the appellants. 2.8. The request for provisional release of the goods was decided by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate of Customs (Preventive), WB, vide order dated 12.03.2020, wherein the Ld. Additional Commissioner has ordered for provisional release of the seize....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in the case of Santosh Gupta -vs.- Union of India reported in 1990 (48) ELT 210. A similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Chhiteshwar Prasad vs. CC (Prev), Patna reported in 2018 (364) ELT 570 (Tri). (iv) Since the seized goods are not liable to confiscation, the appellant submits that the penalty imposed on M/s. Kalika Traders is also liable to be set aside. 4. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF SHRI SHYAMAL ROY: (i) Shri Shyamal Roy, Proprietor of M/s. S. R. Enterprise, submits that he had purchased the impugned goods from the local market and in turn sold the goods to M/s. Kalika Traders against GST paid invoices. In no way any liability can be attributed to him on the alleged smuggled nature of the goods. The learned adjudicating authority has imposed penalty on him under Section 112(a) and/or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department has miserably failed to prove the smuggled nature of the impugned goods. Thus, the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation. (ii) Since the confiscation ordered in the impugned order is illegal, which needs to be set aside, the penalty imposed on him (Shri Shyamal Roy) cannot sustain. 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erprises, categorically stated before the investigation officers, inter alia, that he had purchased the impugned goods from the local market and in turn sold the goods to M/s. Kalika Traders against GST paid invoices. We also find that on 26.08.2019, Shri Vinod Kumar Bhaoshingka, the godown keeper, had submitted before the Customs officers of Siliguri DPU, two Tax Invoices issued by M/s. S. R. Enterprise, South Shantinagar, Siliguri, issued in favour of M/s. Kalika Traders. Thus, we observe that the documentary evidences available on record clearly indicates that the impugned goods were domestically procured on payment of appropriate GST. Thus, we are of the view the goods are not liable for confiscation as the goods are domestically procured and there is no evidence to have the reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled in nature. 9.2. We have also taken note of the fact that samples of Black Pepper, Dry Peas and Dry Khajur were sent for test by Customs to the Regional Plant Quarantine Station, FB Block Sector III, Salt Lake, Kolkata -700097 and to Indian Institute of Spice Research, Post Bag No. 1701, Marikunnu Post, Kozhikode, Kerala. From the reports received from both th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uashed". 9.4. A similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Chhiteshwar Prasad vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna reported in 2018 (364) E.L.T. 570 (Tri). The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are as follows: - "3. I find that the appellant produced the purchase invoice No. 754 dated 06.11.2014 in support of ownership of the goods. The lower authorities observed that the goods were identified as "Split Betel Nuts" and the invoice indicates "Dry Betel Nuts". I find that the Betel Nuts is a non-notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is well settled that burden of proof lies with the department to establish smuggled nature of goods. In the present case, the goods were seized from the Chhapra Railway Station. The appellant produced the purchase documents. No investigation was conducted. In such situation, I do not find any material on record to confiscate the goods. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed." 9.5. Therefore, by relying on the ratio of the decisions cited supra, we set aside the confiscation of the impugned goods as ordered in the i....