Customs | Alleged Export Through Non-Specified Routes Must Be Proved; Presumption Insufficient To Uphold Seizure: CESTAT Kolkata

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that seizure of goods cannot be sustained merely on the assumption that they were intended for export through non-specified routes. In the absence of any corroborative evidence establishing intent to export illegally, such presumption alone is insufficient to justify such seizure. Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) opined that the mere presumption that the goods were meant for export to Nepal through other than the specified routes cannot be a valid reason to uphold the seizure in the absence of any other corroborative evidence to the said effect. In the case at hand, the Revenue seized a total of 212 bundles of clothes from the assessee/appellant en route to Sunali, when the two trucks carting them were somewhere around Jagdishpur, moving towards Bettiah. It was alleged that the goods were being transported for illegal export to Nepal. On the basis of certain statements recorded by the Revenue from the drivers of the two trucks, that the goods were meant for export to Nepal, the Commissioner of Customs/respondent initiated the act of seizure in the matter. The assessee has submitted that, post-seizure, the goods and the two trucks were provisionally released to them against a bond and a security deposit. The Tribunal noted that there is nothing substantive on record to answer the question of discharge of the onus cast upon the authorities under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Interestingly, the goods were also not seized within the notified Customs area under Section 7 or Section 8 of the Customs Act. It is bewildering as to why the Revenue took this strong an action when they clearly admit that the goods were of Indian Origin and were well within Indian territory. Merely on the basis of certain statements so recorded, in absence of any evidence to prove their point, no seizure of Indian origin goods can be effected, stated the bench. A solitary statement of the accused cannot be the basis to fasten penal and other liabilities on the assessee under the statute and hold the seized goods to be “offending” in nature. When the goods have not been carted into the specified Customs area and are interdicted far away from the border areas, they cannot be held as offending goods liable for confiscation, added the Tribunal. The Tribunal opined that the onus cast upon under Section 110 is not discharged in the very least. Question of non-possession of any IEC cannot be a sustainable ground to effectuate the seizure when the goods were found to be of Indian origin, legitimately procured, transiting through Indian territory and quite far from the border areas. The bench opined that the impugned seizure is invalid and illegal. In view of the above, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Case Title: Shri Anil Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna Case Number: Customs Appeal No.79423 of 2018 Counsel for Appellant/ Assessee: Sweety Jha Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Faiz Ahmed Click Here To Read/Download Order

Customs | Alleged Export Through Non-Specified Routes Must Be Proved; Presumption Insufficient To Uphold Seizure: CESTAT Kolkata

Mehak Dhiman

Tags