2017 (9) TMI 1567 - AT - Customs

Absolute confiscation - import of Raw Hide Skin - fake and fictitious documents - Held that - the Customs Officers tried to identify the owner of the goods and no one turned up with proper evidence - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods loaded with Raw Hides intercepted by BSF Officers and subsequent legal proceedings.
2. Claim of ownership by the proprietor of M/s Faridia Transport Agency.
3. Investigation findings regarding the authenticity of transport documents and consignment details.
4. Non-existence of M/s Faridia Transport Agency and lack of evidence of imported goods.
5. Failure to identify the actual owner of the confiscated goods and legal implications.

Issue 1: Confiscation of Goods and Legal Proceedings
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original No.02/Cus/CC(P)/WB/2010, where the Customs Officers confiscated a vehicle loaded with Raw Hides intercepted by BSF Officers. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties and redemption fine, leading to the appellant, the proprietor of M/s Faridia Transport Agency, filing an appeal challenging the order.

Issue 2: Claim of Ownership
The appellant claimed ownership of the confiscated goods and contested the proceedings. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no evidence to prove the consignment of Raw Hide Skins was imported from outside. However, investigations revealed discrepancies in the documents related to the consignment, including fake and fictitious documents.

Issue 3: Investigation Findings
The investigation highlighted various irregularities, such as the non-existence of consignors mentioned in the transport documents, the absence of M/s Faridia Transport Agency at the provided address, and discrepancies in the consignment's origin. Efforts to identify the actual owner of the goods were unsuccessful, as no one came forward with substantial evidence.

Issue 4: Lack of Evidence and Existence
The appellant's counsel argued that no proper inquiry was conducted against the appellant. However, it was noted that the appellant had received summons from the Superintendent of Customs, undermining the claim of lack of investigation. The non-existence of M/s Faridia Transport Agency and the absence of imported goods evidence further weakened the appellant's case.

Issue 5: Failure to Identify Owner
Despite the appellant's claim of ownership, the Customs Officers failed to identify the actual owner of the confiscated goods conclusively. The lack of evidence and the disclaiming of the goods by the consignees in Kolkata added complexity to the case. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the confiscation and penalties, dismissing the appellant's appeal due to insufficient grounds for interference.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA reveals the complexities surrounding the confiscation of goods, the investigation findings, and the challenges faced by the appellant in claiming ownership of the confiscated Raw Hide Skins. The legal proceedings, lack of evidence, and discrepancies in the documents played crucial roles in the final decision to dismiss the appeal.