TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in violation of Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/237 to -242/2012-Cus(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO.51025-51030/2014 - Dated:- 13-3-2014 - Mr. Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant: Shri P.K.Sharma, DR. For the Respondent: Shri Vijai Kumar, Advocate JUDGEMENT PER: MANMOHAN SINGH All the six appeals filed by revenue are being disposed of by a common order as these arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) as per Order-in-Appeal NO. 23-Cus/Alld/2012 dated 16.03.2012 vide which he set aside the order of original adjudicating authority and allowed all appeals of the respondents. 2. Going through the facts briefly, it is observed that the Customs officers intercepted one truck bearing registration number HR 69-2157 at a place near Raja Talab at Varanasi-Allahabad High way. The Truck was carrying Betel Nuts claimed to be imported from Bangladesh. The driver Santosh Singh on demand showed following papers namely - transit Declaration Form (Govt. of U.P.), - lorry Challan of M/s Manglam Parivahan Pvt. Ltd Kolkata, - bill of Entry having serial number 065 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s legally unsustainable. It is not the case of the department that no import had taken place against the Bill of Entry no. 06530 dated 3.11.2010 and the same was fake. It is also not the case of the department that the entire consignment cleared under above Bill of Entry had gone elsewhere. No contravention under Customs Act has been established against the seized consignment so as to justify its confiscation. 6. Department did not agree with the findings recorded by Learned Commissioner (Appeals). Department has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds: a) that the place of loading itself is disputed in the light of transport challans issued by M/s Chandra Roadway who has categorically accepted that he has issued the said challan merely on request/insistence of the party and he has not arranged any transport nor has received any payment. It is also conspicuous that the said challan is without any serial number and not issued from any regular genuine challan book. b) the markings found on the seized bags were different from those which had been imported under impugned bill of entry. c) Commissioner (A) reliance on Boards circular dated 14.12.65 is ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that the difference in markings on bags had arisen as torn bags were discarded and re-bagging of the imported goods in new markings; that the importer possessed three godowns near Indo-Bangladesh border for storing, re-bagging etc.; that company from where sewing machines to stitch new bags was not non-existent unit; that supplier of new bags was very much in existence; that driver was illiterate person and evidence given by him could be doubted upon; that the department had miserably failed in pointing out the route through which the said contraband was imported into India. Further department has failed to discharge burden of proof cast on them. Learned Counsel also raised the issue that filing of appeals by the department was against the National Litigation Policy as duty involved in these appeals was less than Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only). Actually there was no duty involved in these appeals as appeals related to imposition of penalty only. 10. Heard both sides. 11. I have gone through the submissions made by both sides and also have perused the records. It is observed that the Revenue have come up in appeal before Tribunal against Commissioner (Appeals)s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 03.11.2010 for import of betel nuts and 118.367 MTs of Betel Nuts under seized were claimed to be part of that imported consignment. It also observed that respondent have shown ample evidence by way of bill of entry filed for the imported goods i.e. Betel nuts, changing of torn bags and place of actual loading in the truck. On the other hand, Revenue has failed to conduct investigations relating to import of Betel Nuts by referred bill of entry and consequent disposal of imported Betel Nut. Without further corroboration and supplementary evidence, only statement of driver could not establish smuggling nature of the goods and cannot become sole ground to confiscate non notified goods. Department s, contention that imported Betel nuts have been smuggled through route which was not notified under the provision of law. Commissioner (Appeals) is right in holding that Revenue was failed to conclusively proved that Betel Nuts have been smuggled into India from off route from Bangladesh. Even though I agree with Revenues contention that certain irregularities in the nature of documents and statements from Chandra Roadways and Mangalam Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. has led to inconsistencies. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
