Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 755 - Customs
Smuggling - Detention of export goods - misdeclaration of goods - prohibited goods or not - wooden pallets - red sanders or not - onus/burden to prove - section 123 of Customs Act - penalty u/s 114 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Since, there is no denial that the goods which were concealed in the impugned export consignment were the prohibited goods and under the garb of mis-declaration were tried to being smuggled. It is Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 which comes into picture. The said section makes it clear that where any goods which are seized under the reasonable belief of being smuggled, the burden of proof shifts upon the exporter to prove that the goods were not the smuggled goods. Hence, in this case it was the burden of the appellant to produce the positive evidence proving his innocence beyond reasonable doubts - It has been brought to the notice that Shri Ahmed Ali is wanted in several other cases for similar kind of illegal acts. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to discharge the said burden.
Levy of penalty u/s 114 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The said Section opens up with word “any person”, the intention of legislature becomes absolutely clear that the imposition of penalty for any such act or omission which would render any good liable for confiscation is not confined merely to the concerned exporter or anyone working under him or to the CHA including anyone working under him. Intention of legislature is that it can be any other person howsoever distantly relevant to the exporter or the CHA firm if is found involved in any such act which may render the goods to be exported/imported liable for confiscation, shall be liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act.