Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Bhogilal Mehta vs Commissioner Of Customs (P) on 14 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(154)ELT183(TRI-KOLKATA)
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Vide the impugned orders authorities below have confiscated abrasive belts of USA origin totally valued at Rs. 6000/- (Rupees six thousand) with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) and on payment of duty leviable thereon. In addition penalty of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) has also been imposed upon the said appellant.
2. After hearing Shri S.P. Mookherjee, Id. Advocate and Shri T.K. Kar, Id. SDR I find that the abrasive belts are non-notified items under the provisions of Section 123 or Chapter (IV-A) of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant also took the plea before the authorities that the abrasive belts during the relevant period were importable under OGL and no licence was required. As such the appellants' contention was that the burden to prove their smuggled nature lies upon the Revenue.
3. On the other hand the Revenue's stand is that at the time of seizure of the goods, the appellant has admitted that he has purchased it from a broker without any documents. Even subsequently the appellant submitted that the said broker is not available and he could not get the papers from him. However, he took an alternative stand that as the goods are non-notified, it is for the Revenue to prove that the same are smuggled. From the above, authorities observed that as the appellants has been changing their stand, this goes to show that the goods are smuggled.
4. The above reasoning adopted by the authorities is not appreciated inasmuch as at no point of time, the appellant changed his stand. Right from the beginning it was his contention that he has purchased the belts from a broker, who has promised to give him the documents subsequently. As he could not locate the broker, he took a legal plea that the Revenue is under an onus to prove that the goods are smuggled. This adoption of legal plea by the appellant cannot be called the change in the stand of the appellant. Admittedly the goods are non-notified and there is nothing on record to show that the same are smuggled. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellant. Stay petition also gets disposed of.