Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1195 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of imported goods - penalty - prohibited goods u/s 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 - the person from whom the goods were seized was required to discharge the burden of proof that the same had been legitimately imported - confiscation and penalty on the ground that onus of proof had not been properly discharged - Held that: - notwithstanding the proof furnished or nature of the documents produced, all of which merely relate to sale and purchase within India itself, it is but logical to conclude that the onus in section 123 has not been discharged at all. Accordingly watch movements and other watch parts of foreign origin cannot be considered to be licitly imported in compliance with the procedure laid down in the Customs Act, 1962. The goods have, therefore, correctly been held to be liable to confiscation. Penalty - Held that: - unless a person, by an act of omission or commission, can be connected to import of goods that are liable for confiscation, penalty under section 112 will not be lie. The appeal of Shri Jatinder Singh is allowed by setting aside the penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs - Shri Rajendra Jain was the person from whom the goods were seized and the onus of proof regarding legality of imports of the said goods not having been discharged leading to confiscability, the person from whom these were seized cannot claim any mitigating circumstances in the absence of a bill of entry relating the seized goods to duty payment. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under section 112 on Shri Rajendra Jain cannot be faulted. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|