Order Date – 17 January 2023

Parties: Dharmesh B. Bhavsar Vs Principal Commissioner, Customs

Facts –

• The Appellant, Dharmesh B. Bhavsar, is a trader engaged in trading of electronic goods including mobile phones. While transporting various consignments from Delhi to Ahmedabad, the truck was intercepted by Sales Tax Department at Jaipur in the month of July, 2014.
• Thereafter the Customs Department had seized mobile handsets of Chinese origin total quantity 2287 and valuation was done on MRP basis as per the stickers found affixed on the packages of the handsets. As the appellant did not turn up to claim the goods, Department alleged that the mobile phones appears to be of smuggled nature and liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act.

Issue –

• Whether non-claiming of seized goods amounts to smuggling?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that Chinese mobile phones have been purchased by the appellant from open market in Delhi and it is supported by the statement and evidence led by the transporter. Appellant have also produced documents of transport before the Tribunal as well as the bilties that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Ahmedabad. Further, appellant had appeared before the Customs Department and had claimed the goods. Admittedly, no other person has claimed the goods in question.
• The Tribunal held that no evidence has been brought on record in support of its allegation. Further, sale-purchase of goods in India is supported by the levy of Sales Tax by the Sales Tax Department of Rajasthan. Accordingly, the order of Court below is vitiated in law and on facts.
• The respondent –Revenue is directed to release the goods forthwith to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, ordered that the appellant shall not be liable for payment of godown rent or detention charges or demurrage.