Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Ananda Biswas, Mritunjay Saha, Sukdev ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Prev), West ... on 28 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(148)ELT798(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of penalty of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) imposed on each of the 8 appellants, I take up all the appeals together.
2. After hearing Shri P.K.Ghosh, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants and Shri D.K. Bhowmik, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue and after going through the impugned orders passed by the authorities below I find that Chana whole collectively valued at Rs.63,000/- (approx.) have been confiscated absolutely on the ground that the same were meant for illegal exportation to Bangladesh. Shri Ghosh explains that all the above appellants are petty shopkeepers having their shop at Banpur and were working under proper licences. The truck carrying the Chana whole was intercepted by the BSF Officers at Majda Railway Gate Crossing on the ground that the said place was near to the Indo-Bangladesh Border and the chana whole was to be transported to Bangladesh. However, he submits that for reaching the shop at Banpur, the truck has to be necessarily passed through the said Railway Crossing. The chana whole was being carried to the shop in the normal course of their business and papers showing the purchase of the chana whole were also produced by the truck driver but the same were not taken note of by the BSF officers. In this connection, he draws my attention to the Show-cause Notice which states to the effect that enquiry was conducted by the officer In-Charge, Customs, Majda and submitted his report wherein he stated that the ownership of the truck nad chana whole were genuine. The BSF intercepted the truck nad goods on the way near Majda Bazar. The driver of the truck produced valid papers of the goods to the BSF who could not given any importance to all the papers and forceable took the truck and the goods to their camp. Shri Ghosh submits that the said report submitted by the Customs officer has not been taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority who have held against the appellants on the flimsy ground that the place of interception was near to Border and the claim of the ownership was submitted after a gap of 2 days, which period the appellants took to fabricate documents. As such they rejected the appellants claim as an afterthought.
3. I find that as against the documentary evidence produced by the appellants, the Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that the goods were in the process of illegal exportation to Bangladesh. The appellants are having their shop at Banpur, for which they have to necessarily move through the said Railway Crossing, the place of interception. The said factor cannot be taken up as a ground or evidence for reflecting upon the appellants conduct. I also find that a period of 2 days for laying the claim cannot be considered as an inordinate delay on the part of the appellants to show their claim as an afterthought. The Customs report is also in favour of the appellants. Taking all the factors into consideration I set aside (SIC) impugned orders confiscating the chana whole and imposing penalties upon the appellants. I allow their appeals with consequential relief to them. Stay petitions also get disposed of.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)