Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Nipendra Nath Pal, Amiya Kumar Laskar, ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (P), West ... on 27 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(149)ELT143(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. I take up all the eight cases together as they arise out of the same impugned under of Commissioner(Appeals). Vide the impugned orders the appellants have been penalised to the extent of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each and the grocery items of different values (in some of the cases as low as rupees around four thousand) have been confiscated absolutely on the findings that the same were meant for export to Bangladesh.
2. After hearing Shri P.K.Ghosh, ld. consultant along with Shri S.C.Rudra, ld.adv., I find that all the appellants have their shops beyond the point at which the goods were intercepted by the BSF officers in a motor boat. The appellants' shops for grocery items are duty licenced. It has been the appellants' case right from the beginning that the miscellaneous grocery items were meant for their shops at various places, which were beyond the point of interception. However, the lower authorities have rejected the above claims of the appellant on the ground that at the time of interception, the goods were not being accompanied by any authorised representative, that there was a delay of about 15 days in laying their claim to the said goods; that the goods were intercepted at a place which was near Indo-Bangladesh border; that the period between the date of interception and date of claim was utilised by the appellants for fabrication of covering documents.
3. After hearing Shri D.K.Bhowmik, ld.JDR I find that admittedly the appellants' shops are at a place, which is near Indo-Bangladesh border. The said grosery shops have valid licences obtained from Anchal Pradhan. The place where the boat carrying the said goods was intercepted, is the regular way for approaching the appellants' shops. As such it cannot be said that the point of interception is indicative of the goods being meant for export to Bangladesh and not for retail sales from their shops. It is also to be kept in mind that no statement of the boat-man was recorded by the officers indicating the ultimate destination where the goods have to be delivered. Merely because the appellants took some time to claim their goods from the customs cannot act prejudice to their interest. It is the customs who have made out a case against the appellants for the attempted illegal export of the goods and the onus for establishing so lies upon them. There is nothing on record to show that the goods were meant for export to Bangladesh. In these circumstances I find no justification in absolutely confiscating the grocery items of small values and imposing personal penalties upon the appellants. As a result I set aside the impugned order and allow all the eight appeal. Stay petitions also get disposed of.
Dictated in the court.