CUSTOMS ACT, 1962

Section 123

Seizure of goods - Reasonable belief of goods having been smuggled - Burden of proof -

On basis of Intelligence received from officers, DRI intercepted two trucks and seized 32 MT of betel nut along with trucks and documents, under the reasonable belief that the same are liable for confiscation being smuggled from Myanmar. On completion of investigation, a SCN was issued seeking confiscation of seized goods and imposing penalties on parties alleged to have been involved therein. SCN was confirmed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Case of revenue was based on certificate issued by Arecanut Research and Development Foundation (ARDF), Mangalore and the fact that the owners could not establish the Indian origin of the arecanut. Held: It was found that investigation was only in direction to conclude that there was no proof for indigenous and illicit procurement of betel nut seized and that the claim of assessee could not be verified in some cases. The betel nut is not notified under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the burden of proof lies with the department to prove the same. It is not just enough to prove by negative inference. Allegation requires to be proved by cogent and positive evidence. It was found that no such positive evidence has been put forth by the department. There was not even a reference or narration as to how and wherefrom the goods were smuggled. The betel nut being non notified goods; burden to prove the fact of smuggling lied on the department and the same was not discharged. Report of ADRF, Mangalore could not be relied upon and seizure of betel nut was not justified.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT