Order date – 24 November 2022

Facts –

• The Appellant, Atul Dhawan, Proprietor of M/s. Atul Traders, was issued a show-cause notice alleging that the appellant failed to prove the lawful possession of goods detained at his shop. Also it was alleged that he has procured the goods without any cover of Bill/Invoice and duty paying document, out of goods imported illegally in the country and which was the stock found in the possession of M/s. Atul Traders on 11.11.2014.
• Invoices furnished by the appellant were found to be manipulated and suppliers had denied having supplied the goods, as claimed by Atul Traders in his stock statement, and which was admitted by him in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
• Consequently, the goods were confiscated and given an option to redeem the same after paying the redemption fine also demanded duty along with interest and penalty.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is the importer and whether the duty and penalty have been rightly demanded from him?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the goods found or available in the open market are presumed to be duty paid unless otherwise proved by the Department. Admittedly, in the facts of the instant case, Revenue have not brought any material on record that the goods seized from the shop/godown premises of the appellant, were not duty paid.
• Further the Tribunal finds that all the suppliers, whose bills the appellants have produced in support of the goods lying in his godown, have confirmed supply of goods against those invoices, although there are minor distortions in the statements.
• In view of the documentary evidence, oral evidence has got less weight and documentary evidence being more reliable cannot be ignored. As the appellant admittedly is not the importer, as defined under the provisions of the Customs Act, the impugned order confiscating the goods and demanding duty is bad in law and on facts.
• Tribunal found that the show cause notice is vague, as valuation of the goods has been done by the Revenue without any relied upon documents (copy of any retrieved documents from mobile /CPU of the appellant). Further, re-valuation done on the basis of the statements is bad in law and on facts.
• Further, Revenue has not brought any evidence on record to allege that the goods found and seized in the premises of the appellant are smuggled goods. Hence, the show cause notice is vague as it does not specify the particular clause of Section 111, under which the goods are liable for confiscation.
• Hence the appeal is allowed.