Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 717 - AT - CustomsMisdeclaration of goods - Smuggling of goods - Difference between mark on goods and description on documents - Confiscation of goods - whether Commissioner (Appeals) is right in concluding that the department has failed to prove that the imported Betel Nuts are smuggled one - Held that:- in view of the fact that the betel nuts are non-notified items, the onus to prove that the goods are smuggled lies heavily upon the Revenue and which required to be discharged by production of positive evidences - Revenue cannot first show laxity in investigation and then seek to shift the burden to prove that the goods are not smuggled especially when there is not even any evidence produced to show illegal importation of seized non-notified goods - Actually availability of bill of entry and transfer of Betel nuts from torn bags to new bags could not prove that possession was illegal. Thus onus did not shift to the respondent - Accordingly the Department could not discharge the burden cast upon them. Furthermore, the department has no evidence to prove that goods were imported in violation of Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Decided against Revenue.
|