COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI Vs. BHAGYALAXMI METALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. None present for the assessee. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 5 -11 -2003 whereby he has set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that while acting on the information that some importers of Chennai are importing stainless steel coils & sheets under DEEC Licences (Actual User Condition) claiming the benefit of Notification No. 30/97 - Cus. at Chennai Port and diverting the same to various places in Chennai and Mumbai to be sold in the local market, the officers of SUB (Import) undertook investigation and 9 MT of S.S. Coils belonging to the respondent was seized from the premises of M/s. Priya Warehouse. Statement of the proprietor of the respondents was recorded under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein, he stated that he was doing business normally of imported Stainless Steel coils in Mumbai and the seized goods lying at M/s. Priya Warehouse were imported material and was purchased from various parties. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the goods and for penal action against the respondents. Lower adjudicating authority adjudicated the case and confiscated the goods. However, he gave an option to the respondents to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 70,000/ -. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/ - under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents challenged the same before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who after finding that the department could not show that the goods were illicitly imported, set aside the order passed by the lower adjudicating authority. Hence the appeal by the Revenue.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Undisputedly, the goods were seized at Mumbai on the allegation that the goods were cleared under DEEC Licence availing the benefit of Customs Notification and not paying customs duty on the goods. The proprietor of the respondents in his statement stated that the goods were purchased from various parties and from the statement the department could not bring out that he has admitted that the goods were illicitly imported. The Revenue also could not produce any evidence that the goods were illicitly imported and therefore, the onus was on the department to prove the smuggled nature of the goods which the department could not produce nor the department produce any evidence contrary to the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order and the same is upheld. The appeal of the department is devoid of any merit which is dismissed. Appeal is dismissed.