Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 727 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- The source of procurement given by the appellants were found to be false. Therefore, the Department has discharged the burden cast on it and it is for the appellants to prove the licit nature of procurement of the goods which they have failed to do. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka also took a similar stand in the Vikram Jain case cited supra by holding that “the contention of the respondent that the burden of proving that the goods have been smuggled or brought into the territory of India without payment of duty, lies on the authorities would facilitate the mischief since all human affairs require absolute certainty, is a myth and ‘all exactness if a fake’ and absolute proof being unattainable the law would accept as a working substitute in this work-a-day world”. If the department is able to establish that they have satisfied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, they are deemed to have discharged the burden of proof cast on them and established their case. Therefore, we do not find any reason to find fault with the findings that the goods in question are smuggled into the country and consequently they are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. It is not necessary that the goods should be prohibited from import under FTDR Act for them to be confiscated under Section 111(d). In this case the allegation is that the goods have been removed without payment of customs duty and therefore, they are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the said Customs Act. Commissioner has imposed various penalties on the persons from whose possession the goods had been seized under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. It is now well established that mens rea is an important ingredient for imposing a penalty on the persons enumerated in Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The goods may be liable to confiscation for contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act but the person who is in possession of the goods need not necessarily have anything to do with either smuggling or dealing with them knowingly. The evidence brought out by the department nowhere suggests that the appellants were aware that the goods in question were smuggled into the country. Their dealing in such goods, whose tainted nature they are unaware of, is not covered under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The penalties imposed on these persons, therefore, cannot be sustained while upholding confiscation of the goods. We, therefore, set aside the penalties imposed in each of these appeals. - duty demands is confirmed and the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine is upheld in lieu thereof. However, we set aside the penalties imposed. - decided partly in favour of assessee.
|