TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... responsibility of the person from whom the goods are seized or the owner of the goods to prove that they are not smuggled under Section 123. It is clear that even if the goods are of foreign origin, if they have been imported and cleared for home consumption, they cease to be imported goods thereafter and the importer ceases to be the importer. Therefore, no duty can be assessed on such goods under Section 17 of the Customs Act. There is also no responsibility on the importer or on any other person from whom the goods are seized to keep or produce the import documents to establish their legal import once they have been cleared for home consumption. The goods can be used, sold, re-sold, etc. without any duty either on the importer or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 [Impugned order] passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise Customs, Guwahati. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has disposed appeals by seven appellants including the three appellants before us. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] received information and intercepted seven trucks with Betel nuts near Bairabi railway crossing area in Mizoram at Assam Mizoram border on 01.07.2018 on the suspicion that they were of foreign origin. During investigation, the appellants produced GST invoices and E-way bills to assert that the goods were indeed of domestic origin. Not satisfied with the documents which were provided, DRI seized the consignments along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act, 1962. (vii) That all the appellants in this case were liable for penal action under Section 112 (b) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 . 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the first appellate authority who passed the impugned order rejecting their appeals. Hence, the appellants are before us. We have considered the submissions in the appeals as well as the submissions made by both sides. 4. We find that the goods were undisputedly seized within India at Assam-Mizoram border. The ground for seizure and subsequent confiscation is that the owners/occupants were not able to prove the licit import of the Betel nuts which DRI suspected to be of foreign origin. The GST invoices, E-way bills etc. produced by the appellants wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 123. Therefore, the appellants had no responsibility whatsoever to prove that the seized betel nuts were not smuggled even if they were of foreign origin. It is for the Revenue to establish that the goods, in question, were smuggled. Smuggling is defined in Section 2 (39) as follows :- (39) smuggling , in relation to any goods, means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or section 113 ; Imported goods and importer are defined in Section 2(25) and 2(26) as follows :- (25) imported goods means any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods which have been cleared for home consumption; (26) importer , in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
