Order date – 29 November 2022

Facts –

• The Appellant, Shri Raj Kumar Batra, is a trader mainly of musical gazettes like car stereo, amplifier, speakers, etc. having his shop under the name and style of Music Palace situated at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The appellant deals in both type of products, the goods, which are manufactured in India and the goods of foreign origin.
• On a search conducted at the premises of the appellant it was found that the goods appeared to be smuggled in contravention of the various restrictions/prohibitions imposed on the import, thereof as the seized goods were found not bearing the declaration including MRP as required in General Notes to the Foreign Trade Policy, under which Customs Act read with SWM Act and the Rules thereunder and hence, the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
• Indian currency of Rs.14,10,900/- seized from shop are liable to confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, penalty under Section 112 was imposed on M/s.ABC Transport Company on the appellant and also on Shri Satinder Singh Chug.

Issue –

• Whether the confiscation of goods and not bearing the declaration as per FTP and SWM are in order?

Order –

• The Tribunal found that the appellant/assessee have led sufficient evidence that he has purchased the goods from the open market in India and is not the importer. Further, they have led the evidence by producing some documents available with them and also gave name of the parties, who were either traders or importers or manufacturers in India, who had supplied the goods.
• Further, admittedly, as the documents were lying with the Department, the appellant could not produce all the documents in support of his contention. 
• As in the facts of the present case, the jurisdiction to inspect, search and seize the goods in the open market, was with the Director appointed under the SWM Act. The Customs officers can exercise the jurisdiction under the provisions of SWM Act and the Rules thereunder, only in the Customs area. 
• Hence, the impugned order is bad and suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, hold that Revenue has not been able to establish the smuggled nature of the goods.
• Hence the appeal of the appellant is allowed.