2004 (7) TMI 480 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by customs authorities.
2. Burden of proof regarding the origin of seized goods.
3. Legal precedent on the release of seized goods.

Seizure of Goods by Customs Authorities:
The case involved the seizure of goods by customs authorities, specifically 20,000 pcs. of black necklace (mala) and 36,000 pcs. of metallic mala. The appellant claimed that the goods were booked for transportation by specific entities, but efforts to locate the consignees were unsuccessful. The goods were seized from the appellant's custody, leading to the appeals against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata.

Burden of Proof Regarding the Origin of Seized Goods:
During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the burden of proof regarding the origin of the seized goods lay with the Revenue. Citing legal precedents such as Rajeev Kumar Aggarwal v. CEGAT, Anil Kumar Pandey v. Commissioner of Customs, Shillong, and Suresh Kumar Nyolywala v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata, the appellant's representative contended that the Revenue failed to establish the goods' third-country origin. The advocate asserted that since the goods were seized from the appellant and the Revenue did not discharge its burden of proof, the appellant was entitled to receive the goods back.

Legal Precedent on the Release of Seized Goods:
The judgment referenced the case of Rajeev Kumar Aggarwal, where it was held that if there is no proof that seized goods were smuggled, the authorities have no jurisdiction to order confiscation. Similarly, in the cases of Anil Kumar Pandey and Suresh Kumar Nyolywala, it was emphasized that once the Revenue fails to prove the third-country origin of seized goods, the goods should be returned to the rightful owner. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to receive back the seized goods. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, and the seized goods were to be returned to the appellant, with the cross-objections filed by the Revenue also being disposed of.