Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 549 - AT - CustomsSmuggling goods to Nepal - Release of seized goods - seizure of misc. cloth items - violation of the provisions of Sections 7,11, and 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 - allegation that the occupants of the vehicles failed to produce any documentary evidence for legal possession of the goods - HELD THAT:- Since the impugned seized goods are not notified under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proof is on the department - In the instant case, the department appears to have failed to provide the circumstantial evidence to prove the attempt of illegal export. The Adjudicating Authority appears to have rightly cited the cases of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Patna Vs. Manish Kakrania [2012 (5) TMI 722 - PATNA HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that in cases of smuggling the burden of proof to a demonstrable degree lies on the Department. Such burden would be shifted to other person only if circumstances such as place and condition of goods, manner of packing, labeling, transportation, prima facie indicate smuggled nature of goods - In absence of such circumstances and further absence of any other evidence, confiscation of goods and penalties is not sustainable. In the present case, because of inconsistencies in the process of seizure, as is evident from the records of seizure memo and panchnama, even the place of seizure and process of attempt to export illegally cannot be made out with credibility. Thus it appears that the department failed to justify the seizures. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|