Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Budhesh Prasad vs Lucknow on 19 August, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.II
Customs Appeal No.70002 of 2024
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.719-721-CUS/APPL/LKO/2022 dated
26/09/2022 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST & Central
Excise, Lucknow)
Shri Budhesh Prasad, .....Appellant
(S/o Lakshmi Prasad,
R/o Kakarahwa Bazar, Siddharthnagar)
VERSUS
Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow
....Respondent
(5th & 11th Floor, Kendriya Bhawan, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024) & Customs Appeal No.70329 of 2024 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.719-721-CUS/APPL/LKO/2022 dated 26/09/2022 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow) Shri Balwant Singh, Propriter of .....Appellant (M/s Singh Traders, Sekhuwani, Thana Prarsamalik, Maharajganj) VERSUS Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow ....Respondent (5th & 11th Floor, Kendriya Bhawan, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024) APPEARANCE:
Shri Anuj Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri A.K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.70646-70647/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 19.08.2025 Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 2 SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:
These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.719-721-CUS/APPL/LKO/2022 dated 26/09/2022 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow. By the impugned order, appeals filed against Order-in- Original No.82/JC-ADC/2021-22 dated 12.01.2022 holding as follows have been dismissed-
"आदे श i. मै अधधग्रहीत ( seized) 380 बोरी (18650 धि०ग्रा०) तािररत मटर, गुल सीजर मूल्य १०509500/- रूपये वाच लाथ उसठ हजार पाां च सौ मात्र) िो सीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िी धारा 111( b) िे अतगगत अधधहरण (Confiscation) िा आदे श दे ता है एवां साथ ही में मटर स्वामी िो मटर िे अधधहरण ( Confiscation) िे धवरुद्ध रु. 1,39,875/ ( एि लाख उनतालीम हजार आठ सौ पचहतर रूपये मात्र) िे धवमोचन शुल्क (Redemption Fine) सरिारी िोष में जमा िरने पर उसिे धवधचि न्यामी िे पक्ष में धवमोधचत िरने िा धविल्प दे ता हूँ । इसिे अधतररक्त में उफ अधधग्रहीत मटर पर दे य आयात शुष्क एवां अन्य शुल्क ( यधद िोई हो) िो भी सरिारी बाते में जमा िरने िा आदे श दे ता है । चूांधि उक्त अधभग्रहीत मटर िी मामाधयि उन्मुक्तक्त पूवग में ४०1.39.875/- िी नगद प्रधतभूधत राधश जमा िरने एवां उक्त मटर िे मीज़र मूम्य रु०5,59,500/- िे बराबर िा पत्र प्रस्तुत िरने पर उसिे धवधधि स्वामी िे पक्ष में िी जा चुिी है अतः उक्त अधभग्रहीत मटर िी सामाधयि उन्मुक्तक्त हे तु जमा धनराशी रु० 1,39,875/- िो सरिारी बाते में ममायोधजत िरने िा आदे श दे ता हूँ साथ ही में शेष राधश, यधद िोई है , िी वसूली सम्बांधधत Kkपी से धिये जाने िा भी आदे श दे ता हूँ । ii. मैं, अधभग्रहीत बाहन सांख्या UP 56 T-8605, मूल्य रु० 10,00,000/- िो सीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िी धारा 115(2) िे अांतगगत अधधहरण (Confiscation) िरने िा आदे श दे ता हूँ एवम वाहन स्वामी िो रु. 1,00,000/( एि लाख रूपये मात्र) िी धवमोचन राधश जमा िरने िे पश्चात उपरोक्त वाहन िो धवमोधचत िरने िा धविल्प दे ता है । चूांधि उक्त अधभग्रहीत वाहन रधजस्ट्रेशन सांख्या UP 56 T-8605 िी सामाधयि उन्मुक्तक्त पूवग में रु० 1,00,000/- िी नगद प्रधतभूधत राधण जमा िरने एवां वाहन िे मूल्य िे बराबर बन्छ पत्र दे ने िे पश्चात िी जा चुिी है अतः बाहुन िी सामधयि Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 3 उन्मुक्तक्त हे तु जमा धनराधश रु० 1,00,000/- सरिारी खाते में समायोधजत िरने िा आदे श दे ता है ।
iii. मैं, श्री बसवांत धसांह पुत्र सुदामा धसांह ग्राम सेखुआनी, बाना परसामधलि, महाराजगांज पर सीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िे उपरोक्त वधणगत प्रावधानोां िा उल्लांघन िरने िे िारण सीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िी धारा 112
(b) िे अांतगगत रु. 50,000/ ( पचास हजार रुपये मात्र) िा जुमाग ना आरोधपत िरता है ।
iv. मैं. श्री अजय िुमार रावत पुष थी िटे श्वरी धनवासी ग्राम बडग पुर टोला न० 08 धबहारीपुर, थाना-िधपलवस्तु , धजला धसद्धाथगनगर पर सीमाशुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िे उपरोक्त वधणगत प्रावधानोां िा उल्लांघन िरने िे िारण सीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िी धारा 112 ( b) िे अांतगगत रु. 10,000/ ( दस हज़ार रूपये मात्र) िा जुमाग ना आरोधपत िरता हूँ ।
v. मैं, श्री िधपल धनषाद, पुत्र थी बृजमोहन लाल धनवासी ग्राम ऊचागाूँ व, थाना इशानगर, धजला लखीमपुर खीरी पर सीमाशुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िे उपरोक्त वधणगत प्रावधानोां िा उल्लांघन िरने िे िारण सीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िी धारा 112 ( b) िे अांतगगत रु. 8.000/ ( आठ हजार रूपये मात्र) िा जुमाग ना आरोधपत िरता हूँ ।
vi. मैं, श्री बुढेश प्रसाद पुत्र श्री लक्ष्मी प्रसाद धनवासी ग्राम व पोस्ट्-ििरह्वा बाजार, धजला धसद्धाथगनगर पर सीमाशुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िे उपरोक्त वधणगन प्रावधानोां िा उल्लांघन िरने िे िारण सीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िी धारा 112 ( b) िे अांतगगत रु. 25,000/ ( पचीम हजार रूपये मात्र) िा जुमाग ना आरोधपत िरता हूँ ।
vii. मैं, श्री धगररजेश िुमार मौयग ( िृधष मण्डी धनरीक्षि), िृधष उत्पादन मण्डी सधमधत, नौतनबा, महाराजगांज पर मीमाशुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िे उपरोक्त वधणगत प्रावधानोां िा उल्लांघन िरने िे िारण मीमा शुल्क अधधधनयम, 1962 िी धारा 112 (b) िे अांतगगत रु. 5.000/ (पाच हजार रूपये मात्र) िा जुमाग ना आरोधपत िरता हूँ ।"
1.2 Against the Order-In-Appeal dismissing the appeals filed by Shri Balwant Singh, Pro of M/s Singh Traders R/o Sekhuani, Parsamalik, Mahrajganj, Shri Ajay Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Kateshwari, R/o Birdpur, Tol No.8, Biharipur, Kapilwastu, Siddharthnagar, Shri Kapil Nishad S/o Shri Brijmohan Lal, R/o- Unchagav, Ishanagar, Lakhimpur Khiri & Shri Buddhesh Prasad S/o Shri Lakshmi Prasad R/o Kakrahawa Bazar, Siddharth Nagar Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 4 only Shri Balwant Singh, Pro of M/s Singh Traders R/o Sekhuani, Parsamalik, Mahrajganj & Shri Buddhesh Prasad S/o Shri Lakshmi Prasad R/o Kakrahawa Bazar, Siddharth Nagar have filed appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, I am concerned with two appellants only.
2.1 On the basis of intelligence, officers of Parsamalik Police Station intercepted Shri Ajay Kumar Rawat (Driver of the seized vehicle), along with vehicle No. UP-56-T-8605 near the godown of Mr. Balwant Singh which is only 04 Km from Indo-Nepal Border on 15.08.2019 at 03:00 Hrs loaded with 380 Bags of peas weithing 18650 Kg and handed over the said consignment along with vehicle to the officers of Customs.
2.2 On reasonable belief that the said consignment was smuggled peas, which was illegally imported into India through unauthorized routes, the goods and vehicle were seized under Section 110 of the Act by the officers of Customs.
2.3 After inquiry and investigation, show cause notice dated 18.01.2021 was issed to the appellants, proposing threrein confiscation of the said seized goods alongwith the seized vehicle under Section 111(b) and 115(2) of the Act. Penalties were also proposed to be imposed on the appellants and co-noticee under Section 112 of the Act.
2.4 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original dated 12.01.2022 referred in para-1 above.
2.5 Aggrieved appellants have filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), which have been disposed off as per the impugned order.
2.6 Aggrieved appellants have filed these two appeals.
3.1 I have heard Shri Anuj Agarwal learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri A.K. Choudhary learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue.
4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments.
4.2 Impugned order records the findings as follows:-
Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 5
"5. I have gone through the case records. By the impugned order, confiscation of smuggled Peas & the vehicle was ordered under Section 111(b) & 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively and penalties were also imposed upon the appellants U/s 112(b) of the Act.
From the records I find that all the appellants have contended that the show cause notice (SCN) was issued on 18.01.2021 after expiry of six months from the date seizure of goods on 16.08.2019 and the SCN was received on 28.01.2021 by the appellants is not sustainable as the order for provisional release of the seized goods has been issued vide Provisional Release Order No.02/2019-20 dated 28.08.2019 as evident from the Para 4 & 9.9.1 of the impugned order dated 12.01.2022, thus the specified period of six months is not applicable as per Section 110(2) of the Act.
Coming to the merit of the case, I find from the records that the recovery of the smuggled peas from the vehicle No. UP-56-T-8605 has not been disputed as Shri Ajay Kumar Rawat, the appellant no.1 (Driver of the seized vehicle) & Shri Kapil Nishad (Khalasi of the seized vehicle) accepted that the peas were of Canadian origin, same as detailed vide their Fard dated 16.08.2019. I also find that Shri Ajay Kumar Rawat, the appellant no.1 vide his statement dated 17.08.2019 stated that as per the direction of the vehicle owner, Shri Budhesh Prasad, the appellant no.2 and later instructed by Shri Balwant Singh, the appellant no.3 & owner of the seized peas, had loaded the said consignment near his Godown. I find that Shri Balawant Singh, the appellant no.3 in his statement dated 20.08.2019 accepted that the said consignment was locally procured from farmers as mentioned in Form 6R of Krishi Mandi Samiti duly filled by them and the same was destined to M/s. Shri Shyam Industries, Gorakhpur. On perusal of para 9.8 & 9.9 of the impugned order, I find that the statement of Mr. Balwant Singh, the appellant no.3, is not sustainable as the Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 6 Mr. Ramesh Kumar Proprietor of M/s Shri Shyam Industries, Gida vide his statement dated 03.12 2020 stated that he had neither ordered nor purchased any peas from M/s. Singh Traders Sekhuani, Maharajganj and their name was misused by them. Also on enquiry of the farmers as mentioned in Form 6R issued by M/s. Singh Traders, they submitted in written that they did not grow any peas crop and never involved in purchase and sale of the peas. Thus, I find that the documents submitted, at the time of seizure, was for the onwards transportation of the said consignment only to cover the same in the case as discussed disguise of Indian Peas. Thus, I find that the said consignment was rightly above, it can be safely deduced that the adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the said goods for violating the provisions of Section 11 of the Act read with Notification No.9/96-CUS(N.T.) dated 22.01.1996, Section 7(1)(c)of the Act & Notification No.63/94-CUS(N.T.) dated 21.11.1994 and given the option to redeem the same after paying the fine in lieu of confiscation as provided U/s 125 of the Act.
As regards the confiscation of vehicle, I find that as stated by the driver, he acted as per the instructions of the owner of the said vehicle Shri Budhesh Prasad and Sri Baldeo Singh, but there is nothing on record to suggest that owner of the vehicle also knew of the goods being smuggled one. However it is also an admitted fact the vehicle was indeed used in illegal transportation of the smuggled peas, thus, to that extent I uphold the confiscation of the said vehicle under Section 115(2) of the Act.
In respect of the penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, 1 find that Shri Ajay Kumar Rawat, the appellant No.1 was only acting as per the direction of the owner i.e. Shri Budhesh Prasad, the appellant no.2 and therefore, did not enjoy the discretion to choose and unless & until there exists evidence of express culpability of his involvement in the offence, he should not be penalized merely because of being the driver Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 7 of the vehicle. Thus, I find no justification in imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-against Shri Ajay Kumar Rawat. In respect of Shri Budhesh Prasad, appellant no.2, there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant had any knowledge of smuggled/illegal nature of goods to be transported from the godown of M/s. Singh Traders nor involved in illegal import of the said goods. Thus, I find no justification in imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- against Shri Budhesh Prasad.
As regards the imposition of penalty against Sri Balwant Singh, I find that he is the one who is the mastermind of entire operation, who fully involved himself in the illegal importation of the said consignment the local formar vide their declaration in 6R voucher and also the details, of consignment i.e. M/s Shyam Industries, GIDA, Gorakhpur vide invoice no.30 dated 15.08.2019 as discussed in the preceding paras, thus, the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed penalty invoking the provision of Section 112(b) of the Act against him in the impugned order. I do not wish to interfere with the same.
All the three appeals filed by the respective appellants are disposed of accordingly in the manner above."
4.3 Order-In-Original records following findings in respect of foreign nature of peas under seizure and for confiscating the same:
"15.08.2019 को पुषषम ऄषधकाररयों द्वारा फदद बरामदगी दस्तावेज बनाने तक बाहुन चालक बरामद मटर से सम्बंषधत कोइ प्रपत्र नहीं ददखा संक थे परन्तु 16.08.2019 को मीमा शुल्क ऄषधकाररयों द्वारा मटा में गम्बंषधत प्रपत्र मांगे जाने परमते श्री. वनन्त ससह, प्रा० मेससद षसह ट्रेडसद द्वारा जारी आनवायस संख्या 30 ददनांक 15.08.2019 नथा कृ षष मंत्री मषमषत, नौतनवा/कु शीनगर द्वारा जारी प्रपत्र 5 R. एवं 9 ददनांक 15.08.2019 प्रस्तुत कर ददया जबदक ईपलब्ध ररकॉडद के ऄनुसार ईस दौरान श्री बलवंत ससह वहां ईपषस्थत ही नहीं थे। ईक्त घटनाक्रम में आस नवना की पुषि होती है दक श्री बलवंत ससह मीमा पार से ऄवैध रूप से अयाषतत मटर को षवना दकमी वैध कागजात के ईन ट्रक पर नदवा कर दकमी ऄन्य म्यान पर लाभ पर बेचने के षलए भेज देना चाहते थे परन्तु पुषलस ऄषधकाररयों द्वारा सूचनानुमान मंदक पर पहुंच कर जांच दकये जाने पर ईन्होंने श्री षगररजेश कु मार मौयद, कृ षष मण्डी षनरीक्षक कृ षष मण्डी सषमषत नौतनवीं, महाराजगंज के महयोग से ईक्त बरामद मटर के षवक्रय को षवषधक रूप देने का प्रयाम दकया।
Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 8 बरामद मटर के बज़न के बारे में थी बलवत ससह ऄपने बयान में कोइ संतोष जनक ईत्तर नहीं दे सके , ईक्त मटर के बहन के बारे में तो ईन्हें कोइ ऄनुमान ही नहीं था दक ईन्होंने दकतने दकया मटर नोड कराया है जबदक पुषलस ऄषधकाररयों के पहुंचने में नेकर मीमा शुन्यः ऄषधकाररयों को ईक्त मटर दक मुपुवी एक वाहन चालक एवं वाहत बलामी ट्रक पर श्री ईपषस्थत थे और ईन मचकी ईपषस्थषत में 380 बोरी मटर (बजन 18650 दकलोग्राम) बरानद दकया गया था। ऄन प्रस्तुत की गयी टेक्स आनवॉआस में 30 ददनांक 15.08.2019 mDr cjken eVj ls gh lacaf/kr थी, मान्य नहीं है क्योदक ईक्त टैक्स आनवॉआस 400 बोरी मटर (बज़न 200 कु वल) के fy, tkjh dh xbZ FkhA mDr ls सूचना की दृषि होती है दक भी सीमा पार कराचीरराव बाहन पालक एवं श्री कषपल नानामी सहयोग से दकसी ऄन्य स्थान पर भरने षलए भेज देना चाहते थे।
यदद श्री वलवंत ससह की महर देसी व जायज होती तो पुषलस ऄषधकाररयों के अने पर वहां में भाग जाने के व्यापर वह यहााँ ईपषस्थत रह कर महर की खरीद में सम्बंषधत ऄषभलेख जैसे दक स्टॉक रषजस्टर, BR रसीद जी दकमानों के नाम में काटा था टैक्स आनवॉआस बैंक स्टेटमेंट एवं क्रय षवक्रय रषजस्टर आत्यादद प्रस्तुत करते परन्तु सम्बंषधत ऄषभलेखों को प्रस्तुत करने में ईन्हें चार माह से भी ऄषधक का समय लगा। ऄतः प्रस्तुत दकये गये कय षवक्रय से मध्बंषधत ऄषभलेखों की प्रमाषणकता मंददग्ध है।
षजन स्थानीय षशवानी के नाम से 6 मीद काटे गये थे ईन्होंने षवषखत रूप में ऄवगत कराया है दक वे मटर की कोइ खेती नाहीं करते है और न ही वे मटर की खरीद व षवक्री करते है, षजसकी प्रमाषणकता की पुषि सम्बंषधत पान प्रधानों ने भी की है। षवक्रेता (स्थानीय दकसानो) की 6 R रसीदों की प्रषत का क्रेता (श्री वलवन्त ससह) के पास होना एवं प्रस्तुत की गयी 6 R रमीदों में माह के स्थान पर overwriting (जैसे 7 के उपर 8 षलखा गया हो) आस बात को व्थाषपत करनी है दक प्रस्तुत दकये गये 6 ग्मीद प्रमाषणक नहीं है।
श्री रमेश कु मार, प्रोपराआटर, मेससद श्री श्याम आण्डस्ट्री, गोरखपुर ने श्री बलवन्त ससह मे० ससह ट्रेडसद सेखुअनी बाजार जरुपय महराजगंज को न तो कभी मटर खरीदने के षलए अडदर दकया है और न ही पूवद में कभी ईनकी मटर मगवाची है और न ही दकसी तरह का भुगतान दकया गया है। ऄल. यह स्थाषपत हो जाता है दक श्री रमेश कु मार, प्रोपराआटर मंससद श्री श्याम आण्डस्ट्री, गोरखपुर के नाम का दुरुपयोग करके ईक्त बरामद मटर के षवकं ग को षवषधक पदकर प्रयास दकया गया है।
श्री ऄजय कु मार रावत, वाहन चालक श्री कषपल षनषाद बाहन चलानी एवं श्री बुढेश प्रसाद रानवामी द्वारा ऄपने बयानों में की गयी मवीकारोषक्त पर षसद्ध करती है दक ईनके वाहन ट्रक संख्या UP 56 T 8605 पर ही ईन बरामद सदर को गौर दकया गया था षजसके पर पुषलस ऄषधकाररओं की सूचना षमली थी दक संयुअनी चौराहे के पास श्री बलवन्त ससह के गादाम र नेपाल से ऄवैध तरीके से लायी गयी मटर को एक ट्रक पर लोड दकया जा रहा है, मन्य षसद्धय हुइ।
श्री षगररजश कु मार मौयद, कृ षष मण्डी षनरीक्षक कृ षष मण्डी सषमषत नौतनयों, महाराजगंज द्वारा षबना दकसी जांच पडताल क ही गट पास प्रपत्र 30:05 एवं प्रपत्र २० 09 जारी कर ददए गये।
धनः में आस षनश्वाएं पर पहुंचता है दक ईन ऄषभग्राहीत 380 बोरी (18650 दक०ग्रा०) मटर को श्री बसवत ससह, ऄषभग्रहीत मटर के स्वामी द्वारा ऄनाषधकृ त मागद से ऄवैध तरीके से नेपाल से मम्मी दकया गया था जो दक सीमा शुल्क ऄषधषनयम, 1962 की धारा ( १) ( सी) के ऄन्तगदत जारी ऄषधसूचना सं० 63/94-कस ( एन.टी.) ददनांक 21&11&94 के प्रावधानों का ईल्लंघन है. बतः ऄषधहरण योग्य है।
10 ऄषभग्रहीत (seized) 380 बोरी (18650 दक० ग्रा०) मटर को ढोने में प्रयुक्त वाहन ट्रक रषज० संख्या यू०पी० 56 टी०-8605 सीजर मूल्य रु० 10,00,000/- को सीमा शुल्क ऄषधषनयम, 1962 की धारा 115(2) के ऄन्तगदत ऄषपहरण (confiscation)-
Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 9 पूवद के प्रम्नने में यह ईध्य स्थाषपत हो चुका है दक ईक्त ऄषनग्रहीत 380 बोरी (18650 दक०ग्रा०) मटर को श्री बलवंत flag ऄषभग्रहीत मटर के स्वामी द्वारा ऄनाषधकृ त मागद से ऄवैध तरीके से नेपाल से तस्करी दकया गया था जो दक सीमा शुल्क ऄषधषनयम 1962 की धारा 7(1) (सी) के ऄन्तगदत जारी ऄषधसूचना सं० 63/94-कस (एन.टी.) ददनांक 21.11.94 के प्रावधानों का ईल्लंघन ऄन ऄषधग्ण योग्य है। प्रयुक्त वाहन के मन्दभद में मैं यह पाता हाँ दक श्री ऄजय कु मार गवत (चालक), श्री कषपल षनषाद (खलासी) ईस समय ट्रक रषज० सं० 56 टी०-8605 में ईपषस्थत थे जब ददनांक 15.08.2019 को पुषषरा थाना परसामषलक के ऄषधकाररयों ने नम्बरी की गयी 380 बोरी (18650 दक०ग्रा०) मटर के साथ कर ददया था। श्री ऄजय कु मार भी दकया है दक ट्रक रषज० सं० पकडा था और अगे की कायदवाही के षनयं सीमा शुल्क षनचलाल के ऄषधकाररयों को सुपुदद रावत (चालक), श्री कषपल षनषाद (खलासी) ने ऄपने बयानों में आस तथ्य को स्वयं स्वीकार 56. टी०-8605 ही एक ऄषभग्रहीत मटर के पररवहन में प्रयुक्त दकया जाने वाला था ।
mijksDr foospuk ls ;g Li'V gS fd ईक्त ऄवैध तरी से अपात दकये गये मटर की दकसी ऄन्य स्थान पर से जान हेतु मातायात के साधन के रूप में प्रयुक्त वाहन ट्रक पंजीयन संख्या U०पी० 56टी- 8605 ईसी ऄषधषनयम की धारा 1152) के अतगदत ऄषधहरण (confiscation) योग्य है।
11 जाणी नंबर 01 से 05 तक पर पर सीना शुल्क ऄषधषनयम, 1962 की धारा 112 के ऄंतगदत जुमादना :
11.1श्रीबलवंतससह(जापीनंबर(01):
पूवदगामीदेरमेंदीजाएवणदनके ऄनुसारयहतयम्थाषपतहोचूकाहैदकईक्त ऄषभग्रहीत 380बोरी( 18650दक०ग्रा०) मटरकोश्रीबनमन. ससह , ऄषभग्रहीत मटरके स्वामीद्वाराऄनाषधकृ तमागदसेऄवैधतरीके सेनेपालसेअयाततम्करी दकयागयाथाजोदकसीमाशुल्कऄषधषनयम , 1962कीधारा 7(1) (सी) के ऄन्तगदतजारीऄषधसूचनासं० 63/94-कस(एनटी) ददनांक 21.11.94के प्रावधानोंकाईल्लंघनहैऄतःऄषधहरणयोग्यहै।नतोजााँचपडतालके समयऔर नहीऄषधषनभदयनप्रदक्रयाके दौरानईनके द्वाराकोइऐमातथ्यवावाकागजात प्रस्तुतदकएगएषजससेवहषनद्धहोपातादकईत्सामहरवैधतरीके सेअयातदकया गयाथायावैधतरीके सेस्थानीयषवमानोंमेंखरीदीगयीथी।ऄतःश्रीबचतससह , सीमासुरकऄषधषनयम , 1962कीधारा 112 (D) के ऄंतगदतजुमादनालगाये जानेयोग्यहै।
11.2श्रीऄजयकु माररावतशालीबर02);
पूवदगामीपैरामेंदीगएवणदनंके ऄनुसारयहस्पिहैश्रीऄजयकु माररावत , वाहन चालकके रूपमेंतम्हारीदकएयामटरके पररचरममेंपगेल/ऄपमेंमंषनमथे।वाहन चालककीहैषमयनमेंयहसुषनषितकरनाईनकादाषवश्वथादकयददईनके वाहन मेंसंखुअनीजोदकभारत-नेपालसीमासेमात्र04.00दक०मी०कीदूरीपरषस्थत हैमेंआतनीऄषधकमात्रामेंनहरकादकसीऄन्यस्थानपरपररवहनकरनाहैतो ईससेसम्बंषधतसम्पूणदजानकारीप्राप्तकरें दकलेजायाजानेवालामामानऄवैधनो नहींहैयानम्करीकरके तोनहींलायागयाहैईनमामानकीखरीदमेंसम्बंषधत सभीसमुषचतप्रपचहैयानहींपरन्तुतथाकरनेमेंपूणादऄफगी।ऄतःश्रीऄजय कु मारगवतमीमाशुल्कऄषधषनयम , 1962कीग्राग 112 (b) के ऄनगदनजुमादना लगायेजानेयोग्यहै।
11.3श्रीकषपलषनषाद, (ज्ञापीनंबर03) पूवदगामीपैरामेंदीगएवणदनके ऄनुसारयहस्पिहैश्रीकषपलषनपाद , वाहन खलानीके कपमेंनम्करीदकएगएबटरके पररवहनमेंपरोक्ष/ऄपरोक्षगपमेंमंषनम थे।ऄतःश्रीकषपलषनषाद , खलामीनीमाशुल्कऄषधषनयम , 1962कीधारा 112 (D) रऄनगदनजुमादनाबगायेजानेयोग्यहै।
11.4श्रीबदेशप्रमाद(जीनंबर04):
Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 10 40 पूवदगामीपैरामेंदीगाएवणदनके ऄनुसारयहस्पिहैश्रीबुढेशप्रसाद , वाहन स्वामीके रूपमेंतस्करीदकएगएमटरके पररवहनमेंपरोक्ष/ऄपरोक्षरूपमेंमंषनम थे।बाहनस्वामीकीहैषमयतमेंयहसुषनषितकरनाईनकादाषयत्वथादकयदद ईनके बाहुनमेंसंखुअनीजोदकभारत-नेपालसीमामेंमात्र 04दक०मी०कीदूरी परषस्थतहैमेंईननीऄषधकमात्रामेंएटरकोदकसीऄन्यस्थानपरपररवहनकरना हैतोईसनेसम्बंषधतसम्पूणदजानकारीप्राप्मकरें दकमेंजायाजानेवालारामात ऄवैधतोनहींहैवानम्वरीकरतोनहींलायागयाहैईससामानकीखरीदमे सम्बंषधतसभीसमुषचतप्रपचहैयानहींपरन्तुके तमाकरनेमेंपूणदतयाऄसफल रहे।ऄनःश्रीबुदेशप्रमादमीमाशुल्कऄषधषनयम , 1962कीधारा 112 (b) के ऄंतगदतजुमादनालगायेजानेयोग्यहै।
11.5श्रीषगररजेशकु मारमौयद(कृ षषमण्डीषनरीक्षक) (शापीनंबर05) पूवदगामीपैगमेंदीगएवणदनके ऄनुसारयहतथ्यम्थाषपतहोचूकाहैदकईक्त ऄषभग्रहीन380बोरी( 18650दक०ग्रा०) मटरकोभीबलवंतससह , ऄषभग्राहीत मटरके स्वामीद्वाराऄनाषधकृ तमागदसेऄवैधतरीके सेनेपालमेंअयातसरकारी दकयागयाथाषजमकोदकसीऄन्यम्थानपरमेंजानेहेतुषवषधकरूपदेनेहेतुषबना दकसीजााँचपडतालके वैश्वआस्लामईपमकरनेके कारणथीषगररजेशकु मारमौयद (कृ षषमण्डीषनरीक्षक) मीमाशुल्कऄषधषनयम , 1962कीधारा 112 (b) के ऄनगदतजुमादनालगायेजानेयोग्यहै।
12 ईन्नषववेचनाके अधारपरमैंषनम्रअदेशपाररतकरताहैं।"
4.4 I find that the goods under confiscation were intercepted within Indian Territory by the officers of UPP.
4.5 On perusal of the records, it is quite evident that no effort has been made to establish the foreign nature or Nepali origin of the peas seized. The case proceeds on the basis of the non existence of trading relation ship between the appellant and the persons claimed by him to be his buyers. Even if the arguments advanced in the orders of the lower authorities are to be accepted then still the smuggled nature or contravention of the provisions of the Custom Act, 1962 cannot be established.
4.6 Peas are grown in huge quantity in India and in the appellants have in his intial statement claimed to have purchased the same from local farmers. He even produced the documents of such purchase. The said claim of the appellants have been brushed aside without recording any concrete finding with regards to the Nepali Origin of the peas. Was it possible to distinguish between the peas of Indian or Nepali origin, no expert opinion on the issue has been recorded. I do not find any evidence brought on record by which it can be said that the said peas were the peas of Nepali origin. I also notice that there Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 11 seem to be certain variation in respect of the country of origin of the peas confiscated. Para 9.4 of the order in original records by referring to Fard, prepared by the Police Officer as follows:
9.4 इस सम्बन्ध में मैं सबस पहले पुधलस थाना परसामधलि द्रारा तैयार धिये गए फदग बरामदगी दस्ताबेज़ धदनाां ि 16.08.2019 िा उल्ले ख िरता हां , धजस पर श्नी अजय िुमार रावत व श्री िधपल धनषाद द्वारा भी हस्ताक्षर धिये गए हैं इस फदग बगमदगी दस्ताबेज़़ में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्ले ख धिया गया है धि ".... चालि व िलीनर् ले बताया धि बलवांत धसांह पुत्र सुदामा धसांह गाम सेखुआानी थाना परसामधलि महाराजगांज िा िनाधडयन मटर है ूँ उन्ही िे गोदाम से लोड िराया गया हैं , चलने वाले थे धि आप लोग आ गये, चालि से िनाधडयन मटर पधनवहन िरने िे सम्बन्ध मे िागजात मागे गये तो धदखने से िाधसर रहा। बलवांत धसांह िी तलाश धिया गाया िहीां भाग गये है िारण अपराध बता िर धदनाां ि 16.08.2019 समय 03.00 4M धहरासत पुधलस में धनया गया....." माल सम्बन्धी िागजात िे बारे में श्री अजय िुमार रावत िे बयान एवां फदग पर धदए गये धववरण में धवरोधभास यह सांदेह उत्पन्न िरता है धि माल सम्बन्धी िागजात यधद चालि िे पास थे तो पुधलस अधधिाररयोां िो क्ोां नहीां धदखाये।
Even Commissioner (Appeal) records that the issue is in respect of the seizure and confiscation of Canadian Peas. The show cause notice on the first page clearly states that issue is in respect of the "नेपाल से अवैध तरीिे से भारत में लायी गयी मटर". Thus I am unable to make out from the impugned order whether the issue is in respect of illegally imported Canadian Peas or Nepalese Peas.
4.7 Further, I find that these goods are not even specified under Section 123 of Customs Act and hence the burden to prove the smuggled nature of these goods is squarely on the departmental authorities. Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Rahul Kumar & others Final Order No.75955- 75959/2025 dated 23.04.2025 have held as follows:-
"15. Admittedly, when the truck and the car were intercepted, the truck was found to be loaded with 6718.5 kgs of Black Pepper and 3918 kgs of Peas, without any proper documents. Also admittedly the interception and seizure took place at Muzaffarpur, that is well within the Indian region in Bihar.
Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 12
16. The statutory provision enabling the Customs Officials to intercept, check, verify, detain, seize are all guided by Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962. It would be important to go through the relevant provisions, which are extracted below :
Section 123 in the Customs Act, 1962
123. Burden of proof in certain cases.
(1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be-
(a)in a case where such seizure is made from the possession of any person,-
(i)on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; and
(ii)if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also on such other person;
(b)in any other case, on the person, if any, who claims to be the owner of the goods so seized.
(2) This section shall apply to gold, and manufactures thereof, watches, and any other class of goods which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify.
17. A careful reading of the above provisions clarifies that the goods in question pertain to,
(a) Gold
(b) Watches
(c) Any other class of goods which the Central Govt may notify, the officials, can have a reasonable belief and take up the further proceedings. In these cases, the burden to prove the non-foreign nature of the goods is on the person from whose possession the goods are recovered.
18. On the other hand, if the goods in question are not notified by the Central Govt., then the burden entirely shifts to the Customs Officials so as to prove that the goods are of foreign origin.
Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 13
19. On a specific query from the Bench to the Revenue as to whether Black Pepper and Peas have been so notified, the Ld A R makes the following submissions :
Indo Nepal Treaty of Trade 2009 , issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
ll. With Reference to Article II 1- lt is understood that all goods of Indian or Nepalese origin shall be allowed to move unhampered to Nepal or India respectively without being subjected to any quantitative restrictions, licensing or permit system with the following exceptions:
(a) Goods restricted for export to third counties,
(b) Goods subject to control on price for distribution or movement, within the domestic market, and (c) Goods prohibited for export to each other's territories to prevent deflection to third countries The said consignment was intercepted on 28.05.2019 near lndo- Nepal border In this regard, reference is relied upon the written reply given in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Piyush Goyal, as per press release dated 03.07.2019, wherein he has categorically stated, interalia that :
"India is not importing pepper from Bangladesh Bhutan and Nepal. The various steps taken up by the Government to curb import of pepper from Vietnam and Srilanka is as follows ......"
Further, reference is relied upon the written reply given in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Piyush Goyal, as per press release dated 04.12.2019, he has categorically stated, inter- alia that :
In order to reduce the import of pepper and to stabilize the domestic price of pepper, Government has fixed the CIF value of Rs.500 per kg. as the Minimum Import Price (MIP) for black pepper vide Notification of Directorate General of Foreign Trade Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 14 (DGFT) dated 6/12/2017. Subsequently, an amendmentwas brought in the MIP notification by making import of pepper at or above Rs. 500 per kg.
free and import below Rs. 500 per kg prohibited vide DGFT Notification dated 21/3/2018. Some representations regarding smuggling of low priced black pepper from other origin to Indio through Nepal and Bangladesh border were received. In this regard, the field formation of Customs and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence have been alert and made vigilant at the point of entry in the port to detect and prevent entry of inferior quality pepper, from other counties to India. Customs has booked several cases of attempted smuggling of pepper in the recent past Source: DGCI&S Kolkata/DLI from Customs provided by the Spices Board of India
20. The above details provided by the Revenue only go on to show that some restrictions have been placed on the Minimum Import Price and the situation is being monitored to curb smuggling of low quality Pepper into India from these countries. In order to attract the provisions of Section 123, and to fasten the burden on the person possessing the goods, the items in question, that is the Black Pepper and Peas should have been properly Notified by the Government, which does not seem to be the case here. The statement of the Minister in the Parliament and Press Conference briefings not carry any statutory weight unless the goods are notified. Thus, I take the view that the Black Pepper and Peas are not covered by any Notification and hence they are not subject to the provisions of Section 123.
21. Therefore, the onus to prove that the goods are of foreign origin, is on the Customs Officials. From the Show Cause Notice and Order in Original, it is seen that the Picture of the Gunny/Woven bags are reproduced with the printed matter of "Rose Brand 5MM Jumbo" and "Sanchit Black Pepper 5MM Best Quality". Obviously, these are the Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 15 Brand Names. The Bags do not carry any details of the manufacturer's name, their address etc. In such a case no assumption can be made about the foreign origin of these goods. There is nothing to suggest that the Customs Officials have made any enquiry to know as to who the owner of these Brands is and where the factories are located. Another way of ascertaining the origin would be to get the goods tested by approved / empanelled Testing Agency to check the quality of the goods to prove as to whether such goods are of Indian or are of foreign origin. I do not see any such attempt has been made by the Customs officials.
22. The next thing to be considered is the place of interception and seizure. Admittedly, the goods were seized at Muzaffarpur. On checking the map and location, I find that Muzaffarpur is located at a distance of about 216 KMs from Bhimnagar [the alleged town via which the smuggling is taking place]. Further, it is stated that the goods have been loaded from a godown at Bhimnagar. As to whether the goods were initially smuggled from Nepal to Bhimnagar, and as to who undertook this work, is not coming out clearly in the proceedings. Even from the recorded statements of various persons including some of the noticees / appellants herein, there is no admittance from their side that the goods have been procured illegally from Nepal. Therefore, I take a considered view that the Revenue has not been able to prove conclusively that the goods are of foreign origin.
23. Since the Revenue has not been overcome the test of bringing in conclusive proof towards the foreign origin of the goods, going into the detailed investigation process and allegations and findings given in the impugned order would be more of academic interest. Admittedly, prima facie, the documentary evidence brought in by the appellants have been found to be doubtful. But the point in the present case is, unless it is proved that the goods are of foreign origin, the anomalies found in the transactions cannot implicate the appellants under Customs Act Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 16 provisions, though they might get implicated under other statutory provisions. Illegality or otherwise of other statutory provisions will have no bearing on the Customs Act provisions and hence they cannot come to the rescue of the Revenue in the present case."
4.5 It is also not brought on record as to how any test or opinion of certain experts were taken in the matter for determining the origin of these goods. In absence of any evidence to establish that the impugned goods were illicitly brought from Nepal, I do not find any merits in the impugned order upholding the confiscation of the goods. As I hold that confiscation of the goods could not be upheld, the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Act needs to be set aside.
4.6 In case of Subodh Das [2023 (385) E.L.T. 693 (Cal.)], Hon'ble Kolkata High Court observed as follows:
4.The first question which was considered by the Learned Tribunal is as to on whom the burden of proof lies in establishing that the goods in question are smuggled goods. The Tribunal, in our view, rightly took into consideration the fact that betel nuts are not goods notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Hence, no adverse presumption against the respondents should be made about the said goods being smuggled or being of foreign origin. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the burden is on the department to prove that the goods were of foreign origin.
5.In support of its conclusion, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), WB, Kolkata v.
Sudhir Saha, reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 26 (Cal.) = 2004 taxmann.com 1512 (Cal.). In the said decision, the Court held that betel nuts which were seized are not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the said provision applies only in respect of goods which are smuggled and smuggled goods means something suggesting that they are of foreign origin and their recent Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 17 importation from abroad. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Shantilal Mehta v. Union of India, reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1715.
6.The Tribunal noted that the facts of the case on hand were identical to that of the facts in the case of Sudhir Saha and that the burden of proof to establish the smuggled nature of the seized goods was on the department and taking note of the factual position, the Tribunal held that the department miserably failed to discharge the burden cast upon them. Further, the Tribunal took note of the finding recorded by the Commissioner in the adjudication order wherein it has been stated that there may be a possibility that the subject betel nuts too are of foreign origin and were smuggled to India. Commenting upon the said finding, the Learned Tribunal, in our view, rightly held that this finding is based entirely on presumption for which there is no legal or factual basis disclosed. That apart, the Tribunal has also examined the other facts, namely, the statements which were recorded from the respondents at the first instance, which were subsequently retracted before the Learned Magistrate. The Tribunal found that the statements initially recorded from the respondents who are semi-literate persons were identical and one was mirror image of the other and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved those statements and in any event the same having been retracted at the earliest point of time, held that the statements could not have been the basis of the adjudication. Further, on facts, the Tribunal found that the goods were seized far away from the international border in the interior of North Bengal from trucks/warehouses and also it is an undisputed fact that betel nuts are sold in the adjoining States of Assam and Manipur as well as north districts of West Bengal and their adjacent area. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the absence of evidence on the contrary disclosed, it has to be concluded that the Revenue has been unable to establish the Customs Appeal No.70002 & 70329 of 2024 18 smuggled nature of the seized goods and, thus, discharge the burden of proof cast upon the revenue in this respect.
4.7 Impugned order lacks merit to the extent it pertains to the appellants before me.
5.1 Appeals are allowed.
(Operative part of the order is pronounced in open court) (SANJIV SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) akp