DWARIKA PD. AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned orders 45 bags of betel nut belonging to the appellant have been confiscated absolutely and personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - has been imposed.

(2.) AFTER hearing Shri A. Sinha, ld. Consultant and Shri R.K. Roy. ld JDR, I find that the betel nut is a non -notified items under the provision of Section 123. As such the onus to prove that the same are smuggled lies heavily upon the department. Apart from this fact the department is also under an obligation to first prove that the betel nuts are of foreign origin. On the contrary I find that the original adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant could not prove by satisfactory documents in respect of the said goods to be of Indian origin. It is the duty of the Revenue to prove that the betel nuts were of foreign origin and secondly they were imported illegally. The original adjudicating authority has gone by some circumstantial evidence which can at best only throw some doubt against the said goods but do not prove it beyond doubt that the same were of tainted character. Accordingly in the absence of any satisfactory evidences to prove that the betel nuts had been smuggled by the appellant I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.