PREM SAGAR AGGARWAL, SHRI Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are directed against a common Order -in -Original dated 31.8.2001. Accordingly, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Relevant facts leading to the passing of the impugned order may be stated first. M/s J.P. Bearing Co. is a dealer in a ball bearings, located Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. On 13.10.99, its premises were searched by the officers of Customs. They seized about 52,000 pieces of ball bearings of assorted sizes of foreign origin. The goods were collectively -valued around Rs. 55.5 lakh, M/s J.P. Bearing Co. could not produce any document relating to import of these goods, Subsequently, statements were recorded from partners of J.P. Bearing Co. as to how they had required the goods in question. It was their explanation that they purchased the goods from various dealers through brokers and that part of the goods had been sold by the Customs Authorities. Some bills relating to purchase and particulars of payments for the goods were also produced. Accepting these explanations, the authorities released to M/s J.P. Bearing Co. over 25,000 pieces, that is about half of the goods originally seized. The Customs Authorities undertook a verification of the claims relating to purchases. Summons issued to the purported sellers of the goods came back with postal endorsements "Not known". Thereupon, Show -cause Notice was issued dated 24.10.2000 proposing to confiscate the goods which had not been released and to impose penalties on the parties, The appellants contested the proposals on the ground that the Customs Authorities had not made out any case that the goods in question were smuggled goods so as to make them liable to confiscation as proposed in the Show -cause Notice under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act or to make the parties liable to penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, Apart from their contention relating to total absence of evidence indicating smuggling of the goods, the parties also contested the valuation adopted by the authorities. Those submission found no acceptance and the impugned adjudication order was passed by the Commissioner.

(3.) The contentions advanced in the present appeals are also the same. It is the submission of the appellant firm that the Revenue has not discharged its burden of showing that the goods had been smuggled into India. Learned Counsel for the appellants took us through the case records and submitted that the order of confiscation has been passed merely on the ground that the appellants have failed to produce any legal evidence of acquisition, possessing, purchasing, keeping etc. of the goods. Learned Counsel also pointed out that apart from the fact that Revenue has failed to marshal any positive evidence suggestive of the smuggling of the goods, it has, in fact, accepted the appellants' claim that half the goods had been acquired in the normal course. According to the learned Counsel, the position is that the Revenue has not accepted the appellant's bona fide explanation about purchase of the goods through brokers in respect of the confiscated goods. The learned Counsel has stressed that this is no ground for confiscation of the goods under the Customs Act. That confiscation calls for a finding based on positive evidence that the goods had violated the provisions of Customs Act as stipulated under Section 111 and not merely that the goods found in the Indian market were not properly accounted for. The learned Counsel also pointed out that since the ball bearings were not an item notified under Section 123 or under Chapter IV of the Customs Act, there was no burden on the Dossessor of the goods in India to prove that the goods had been obtained through legal import and that they were properly accounted for in the books. The learned Counsel emphasized that the only material relied on by the Revenue is that the goods are of foreign origin and there is no other evidence whatsoever in support of the allegation that the goods were smuggled goods. The learned Counsel has submitted that it is settled law that the foreign origin of the goods is no ground for holding that they were smuggled goods liable to confiscation. In support of this, he referred to the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs and Central Excise v. Shri Balkrishan, 1987 (29) ELT 65 and in the case of Hindustan Bearing Corporation v. Collector of Customs, 1990 (50) ELT 91.