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 253 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - Notification 9/96-Cus - Consignment seized from railway station on belief that the goods were smuggled into India from Nepal - Confiscation u/s 111(d) of Custom Act - Held that:- To invoke notification 9/96-Cus first it has to be proved that the goods were exported to Nepal from a country other than India and then that the goods have been imported from Nepal to India. None of these two facts are proved. An expert’s opinion that the goods are not produced in India does not mean that the above two facts are proved. Notification No. 9/96-Cus., dated 22-1-1996 cannot be interpreted to mean that customs authorities can seize any goods anywhere in India alleging that the goods have been first exported from countries other than India to Nepal and then imported into India from Nepal For confiscating the goods Revenue should have discharged the burden to prove that the goods were exported to Nepal from a country other than India and then the goods were imported into India from Nepal. In both the matters Revenue has failed to discharge the onus. The reason that the mandi receipt and the Railway Receipt were in the names of a firm not found at the address given does not discharge this onus Revenue is not challenging the appellant’s ownership of the goods inasmuch as penalty has been imposed on the appellant. If the appellant had bought the goods from another party with name of R.P. Enterprises whose address was fake or if the appellants themselves have transacted the business in the name of a fake company that cannot constitute an offence under the Customs Act enabling the customs officers to seize and confiscate the goods. In favour of appellant
|