Onus is on Revenue to prove Smuggled Nature When Goods are notified u/s 123 Customs Act: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi Bench held that Onus is on Revenue to prove smuggled nature when goods are notified under Section 123 Customs Act. Raj Kumar Batra, is the proprietor of the appellant M/s.Music Palace.

A show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) alleging that the goods found in the shops/godown valued at Rupees ninety-two lakhs appeared to be smuggled in contravention of the various restrictions imposed on the import, thereof as the seized goods were found not bearing the declaration including MRP as required in General Notes to the Foreign Trade Policy, under which Customs Act read with SWM Act and the Rules.

Hence, the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Indian currency of Rupees fourteen lakhs was seized from shop are liable to confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, penalty under Section 112 was imposed on M/s.ABC Transport Company and also on the appellant. Shri Satinder Singh Chug, Proprietor of M/s. Chug Transport Co. was also penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statements from concerned persons were also recorded by the Department.

The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellanthas produced sufficient evidence that he has purchased the goods from the open market in India and is not the importer and also gave name of the parties, who were either traders or importers or manufacturers in India, who had supplied the goods.

Further, all such suppliers/importers have corroborated the statement of the appellant/assessee, as to have supplied the goods. Further, admittedly, the documents available with the appellant in support of the goods lying with the appellant in shops/godown were resumed by Revenue officers of DRI about a month before the search by the Customs (Preventive).

A Bench consisting of Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member observed that “Under the facts and circumstances, the goods being not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, it was onus on the Revenue to establish the smuggled nature of the goods, which the Revenue have miserably failed. Not a single evidence was produced by Revenue in support of allegation of smuggling save and except bald allegation.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.