COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA Vs. MANISH KAKRANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard leaned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under appeal dated 12-7-2005 [2006 (205) E.L.T. 444 (Tri.-Del.)] whereby the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order for confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty.

(2.) After giving details as to how 62 pieces of mobiles and 38 pieces of earphones of foreign origin were first recovered near Patna from one Chandresh Chopra on 12-12-2002 while he was travelling from Chennai and how on his disclosure, further 62 pieces of mobiles of foreign origin were recovered from the residential premises of Shri Manish Kakrania and their failure to produce any document regarding valid acquisition of the goods leading to seizure, the Tribunal has noted that the goods were not notified goods either under Chapter 4(a) or under Section 123 of the Customs Act and hence, the burden was on the Revenue to prove that those goods were smuggled goods.

(3.) The Tribunal found that there is not an iota of evidence on record to substantiate the allegation that the goods were smuggled goods. The Tribunal explained the judgment in the case of Nazir-ur-Rahman v. CC, Mumbai, 2004 174 ELT 493 by pointing out that although the goods seized in that case were non-notified but the goods had been brought in a baggage by the passenger who alighted at Santa Cruz Airport, Mumbai and that baggage was found to contain the goods of foreign origin. The Tribunal came to a final conclusion that in India the seized goods are freely traded in the market without any restrictions and, therefore, their smuggled nature was required to be proved by the Revenue.