No Scientific Test or Documentary Proof to Establish Foreign Origin of Dry Dates: CESTAT Sets Aside Confiscation [Read Order]
CESTAT ruled that the department failed to produce any scientific or documentary proof to establish that the seized dry dates were of foreign origin and set aside the confiscation.
Dry Dates - CESTAT - taxscan
Dry Dates - CESTAT - taxscan
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the department had no scientific or documentary evidence to prove that the seized dry dates were of foreign origin and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on the trader.
Nitin Trading Company, the appellant, is engaged in the trading of dry fruits and other grocery items in Lucknow. A search was conducted by the Customs (Preventive) authorities on 18 November 2019 at the premises of Chandra Cold Storage, where 42 bags of dry dates weighing 2,100 kg were found and seized. The department claimed that the dry dates were of foreign origin and had been imported in violation of the Customs Act, 1962.
During the investigation, the appellant’s proprietor, Shri Nitin Agrawal, admitted ownership of the goods and produced the Invoice and E-way Bill, both issued by Jainam Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. The adjudicating authority held that the dry dates were of foreign origin based on visual inspection and statements of two local traders who opined that the goods appeared to be imported.
The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld the order, following which the appellant approached the Tribunal. The appellant’s counsel argued that the seizure and confiscation were based solely on suspicion and lacked any scientific or documentary evidence. They pointed out that the testing authority clearly stated it could not determine the origin of the goods and that the local traders’ opinions were based only on visual examination without any technical reasoning.
The counsel further argued that the goods were accompanied by genuine commercial documents and payments were made through bank transactions, leaving no basis to conclude that the goods were smuggled.
The single-member bench comprising P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) observed that the department failed to conduct any proper inquiry or obtain scientific proof to establish that the goods were of foreign origin.
The tribunal observed that the testing laboratory had categorically stated its inability to identify the country of origin and that the traders’ opinions, based only on visual inspection, had no evidentiary value. The tribunal explained that mere assumptions or suspicions cannot be treated as proof of smuggling.
It further observed that the appellant had produced valid GST invoices, e-way bills, and bank records, and none of these documents were found to be fake or fabricated. The tribunal set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on the appellant, holding that the department had not produced any scientific test result or documentary evidence to prove that the dry dates were of foreign origin. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
