AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad, the appellant No.1. I notice that Shri Rishikant Yadav, the appellant No.2 is the owner/driver of the said vehicle and was hired by Shri Subhash Prasad in transporting the impugned goods by his said truck. There is no evidence available to show his connivance with Shri Subhash Prasad in the said smuggling activity. He just engaged his truck for freight of Rs.5,000/. Neither he nor Shri Subhash Prasad in their respective statements stated anything about his involvement in the smuggling of the impugned goods. Therefore, I do not find him guilty of the said offence and vacate the penalty imposed upon him under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. ------------------------ Now, I come to the departmental appeal filed in the present case. It is a settled fact that the owner of the goods is required to pay the applicable duty and other charges along with redemption fine imposed on the confiscated goods in lieu of confiscation. Here in this case, the adjudicating authority had appropriated the security amount of Rs.74,880/- deposited by its owner against the redemption fine. Therefore, Shri Subhash Prasad, the appellant No.1 & the owner of the said goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2327;्राम भरमी, पो० बघेली, जिला सिद्धार्थनगर (अभिग्रहीत मटर के स्वामी) को एतद्वारा यह आहूत किया जाता है कि वह अपर आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क (निवारक) आयुक्तालय, पंचम तल, केन्द्रीय भवन, सेक्टर- एच, अलीगंज, लखनऊ को इस कारण बताओ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....51;ा, पो० बेलवा रसूलपुर, जिला गाजीपुर (अभिग्रहीत ट्रक रजि० सं० UP-61-AT-0717 के स्वामी) को एतद्वारा यह आहूत किया जाता है कि वह अपर आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क (निवारक) आयुक्तालय, पंचम तल, केन्द्रीय भवन, सेक्टर- एच, अलीगंज लखनऊ को कारण बत....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....री (24960 कि०ग्रा०) मटर को मूल्य रू 7,48,800/- (रुपया सात लाख अड़तालीस हजार आठ सी मात्र) है, को सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 111 (b) के अन्तर्गत अधिग्रहीत (Confiscate) किये जाने का आदेश देता हूँ। मैं अभिग्रष्ठीज़ (Confiscated) 520 बोरी (24900 कि० ग्रा०) मटर मूल्ë....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50;ैं अभिग्रहीत ट्रक रजि० सं० UP 61AT-0717 मूल्य रू 20,00,000/- (रूपया बीस लाख मात्र), को भी इसी अधिनियम की धारा 115 (2) के अन्तर्गत अधिग्रहीत (Confiscate) किये जाने का आदेश देता हूँ, एबम अधिकृत बाहन स्वामी पर रु०. रू 2,00,000/- (रु० दो लाख मात्र) का विमोचन शुल्&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2366; सिद्धार्थनगरपर सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 की धारा-112 (b) के अन्तर्गत रू० 2,00,000/- (रूपया दो लाख मात्र) जुर्माना/अर्थदण्ड लगाये जाने का आदेश करता हूँ। (घ) मैं श्री ऋषिकांत यादव पुत्र स्व० मोती यादव निवासी ग्राम देवकठिया, पो&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.1 Appellant is absent on call. This matter has been listed earlier on 05.02.2025, 13.03.2025 and for today. In terms of proviso to Section 129B (1A) of the Customs Act, following has been held:- "[(1A) The Appellate Tribunal may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal." 3.2 I heard Shri Santosh Kumar Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue. Authorized Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Order-in-Original records the findings as follows:- "520 बोरी (24960 कि०ग्रा०) मटर सीजर मूल्य रू0 7,48,800/- का सीमा शु&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ा शुल्क ( निवारक) मण्डल नौतनवां के अधिकारियों ने उपरोक्त बरामद 520 बोरी (24900 कि०ग्रा०) जी कि सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 111 (बी) के अन्तर्गत अभिहरण(confiscation) योग्य है एवं उक्त मटर को कोने में प्रयुक्त वाहन ट्रक रवि० सं० UP 61AT-0717 उसी ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ास्ते में पुलिस थाना कोल्हुई के अधिकारियों ने उन तीनों को पकड़ लिया; यह कि उसने उक्त मटर को नेपाल के किराना मण्डी से नगद भुगतान करके खरीदा था और इसका कोई रसीद / बिल नहीं लिया था। इसी प्रकार श्री त्रऋषिकांत याद....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2325;र किया हैं। इसी प्रकार श्री गिरिजा यादव ने दिनांक 18.10.2019 को सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 108 के अन्तर्गत दिये अपने बयान में बताया कि गाड़ी में माल लोड करनें के बाद वह माल मालिक श्री सुबाष प्रसाद एवं वाहन चालक श्री ऋë....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....375; भारत में लाकर भारत- नेपाल सीमा के पास स्थित ठोठरी के पास एक बगिया में इकट्ठा किया गया और श्री ऋषिकांत यादव (अभिग्रहीत ट्रक रजि० सं० UP 61AT-0717 के स्वामी एवं चालक) तथा श्री गिरिजा यादव (मजदूर) ने भाडे एवं मजदूरी के लालच &#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2381;क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 111 (बी) के अन्तर्गत अधिहरण (confiscation) योग्य है 18. अभिग्रहीत 520 बोरी (24960 कि० ग्रा०) मटर को ढोने में प्रयुक्त वाहन संख्या UP 61AT-0717 का अधिनियम की धारा 115 (2) के अंतर्गत अधिग्रहण (confiscation) :- इस विषय पर पंचनामा, अभिग्रहीत वाहन UP 61AT-07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....46;कड़े गये ट्रक रजि० सं० UP 61AT-0717 पर लाद कर श्री गिरिजा यादव (मजदूर) एवं श्री ऋषिकांत यादव (वाहन स्वामी एवं चालक) के साथ लोटन होते हुए कोल्हुई भाजार फो रहे थे कि तभी रास्ते में पुलिस थाना कोल्हुई के अधिकारियों ने उन तीê....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2332;िससे उसे लगभग रू0 30,000/- का लाभ प्राप्त हो जाता, कि उसे इसकी जानकारी है कि अनाधिकृत मार्ग से अवैध तरीके से कोई भी सामान नेपाल से भारत में लाभा या भारत से नेपाल ले जाना सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन एव....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... पर लाद कर, श्री सुबाष प्रसाद (माल मालिक) एवं श्री गिरिजा यादव (मजदूर) के साथ पहुंचाने जा रहा था कि तभी रास्ते में पुलिस थाना कोल्हुई के अधिकारियों ने उन्हें पकड़ लिया कि उसे इसकी जानकारी है कि अनाधिकृत मार्ग से....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loaded into nis truck on the direction of Shri Subhash Prasad. Shri Girija Yadav, the appellant No.3 in his statement 16.10.2019 stated that he is only a labour and Shri Subhash Prasad hired him for loading/unloading of the said goods. Shri Subhash Prasad, the appellant No.1 has taken a plea that the seized Peas were of Indian origin. I find that at the time of interception of the said vehicle, no document was found available with the said consignment of the impugned goods. Shri Subhash Prasad also could not produce any purchase bill with respect to the said goods showing that he procured the impugned goods from the local market. Hence, his said claim is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is clearly an afterthought on his part to cover-up his said smuggling activity. Further, he himself admitted in his said statement that he purchased the impugned goods from Nepal on cash payment without any bill. It has been held in catena of judgments that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act are in the nature of substantive evidence and culpability of the offence by the concerned persons can very much be relied upon on such statement. In the case K.I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 108 of the Customs Act and these statements are admissible as evidence in any proceedings relating to goods imported illicitly into India. However, it is settled law that the reliance on the statement could be only to the extent it establishes the facts of the case and is corroborated by the other evidences. In absence of any investigation with regards to the foreign smuggled nature of peas the impugned order holding that these seized and confiscated peas are of Nepali origin cannot be upheld. 4.7 In similar case, I find that Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Rahul Kumar & others Final Order No.75955-75959/2025 dated 23.04.2025 have held as follows:- "15. Admittedly, when the truck and the car were intercepted, the truck was found to be loaded with 6718.5 kgs of Black Pepper and 3918 kgs of Peas, without any proper documents. Also admittedly the interception and seizure took place at Muzaffarpur, that is well within the Indian region in Bihar. 16. The statutory provision enabling the Customs Officials to intercept, check, verify, detain, seize are all guided by Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962. It would be important to go through the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt 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 the Government to curb import of pepper from Vietnam and Srilanka is as follows ......" Further, 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 04.12.2019, he has categorically stated, inter- alia that : In order to reduce the import of pepper and to stabilize the domestic price of pepper, Government has fixed the CIF value of Rs.500 per kg. as the Minimum Import Price (MIP) for black pepper vide Notification of Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) dated 6/12/2017. Subsequently, an amendment was brought in the MIP notification by making import of pepper at or above Rs. 500 per kg. free and import ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms 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 Nepal to Bhimnagar, and as to who undertook this work, is not coming out clearly in the proceedings. Even from the recorded statements of various persons including some of the noticees / appellants herein, there is no admittance from their side that the goods have been procured illegally from Nepal. Therefore, I take a considered view that the Revenue has not been able to prove conclusively that the goods are of foreign origin. 23. Since the Revenue has not been overcome the test of bringing in conclusive proof towards the foreign origin of the goods, going into the detailed investigation process and allegations and findings given in the impugned order would be more of academic interest. Admittedly, prima facie, the d....