Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 53 - AT - CustomsOnus to prove goods are smuggled or not - licit or illicit import of dry battery cells & Calculators - Appellant contended that even if some of the goods bear a foreign country name the same does not make them smuggled goods as all the seized goods are freely available on the roadsides in India. That once the goods are not liable to confiscation then Revenue has no authority to retain the seized good, & were required to be released to the owner or the appellant who was the custodian of the goods during transportation. Held that:- As these goods are not notified under Sec 123 of the Customs Act 1962, therefore, the onus is on the Revenue to establish that these goods were smuggled into India, Except for the goods mentioned at Sr No. 3,4,&5 (Calculators) all other goods of foreign origin or believed to be of foreign origin are not liable to confiscation as correctly held by the first appellate authority. Under the existing factual matrix it can not be upheld that the goods of Indian origin were used for concealing contrabed goods and are not considered as liable to confiscation under Sec 119 of the customs Act 1962. However calculators of foreign origin, mentioned at Sr. No. 3,4, & 5 of the inventory dt 23/8/10, are liable to confiscation in view of Sec 123 of the customs Act 1962. As these is no absolute prohibition on importation of these goods, therefore, these calculators can not be confiscated absolutely. Appellant is thus required to be given an option to redeem the same on imposition of appropriate redemption fine under Sec 125 of the customs Act 1962 by the Adjudicating authority. Decided partly in favor of revenue.
|