Commissioner of Customs vs Balwinder Singh and Another

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard Sri K.D. Nag, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the private respondents.

The present reference u/s 130-A of Customs Act, 1962 (In short the Act), has been preferred against the order dated 1.5.2003, passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi).

The facts of the case in brief, are that 20 bags of small cardamom, were found abandoned in a vehicle parked on the bye-lane of Lucknow-Faizabad Road, near Polytechnic Crossing, Lucknow. The goods were seized u/s 110 of the Act and the truck was also seized u/s 115(2) of the said Act. An application was moved for release of the seized truck.

It has been stated that nobody has claimed the ownership of the goods confiscated by the department. Hence the only dispute which arises in the present reference, is with regard to the truck and penalty imposed upon the owner.

Submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the goods were of Guatemala origin, a country in Central America and, since the goods seized were smuggled into India from outside the country, the respondents were liable to pay a penalty apart from the confiscation of seized goods in question.

The only evidence on record is that the wrappers of the seized goods, contained foreign marks and the small cardamom seized, was wrapped in Nepali newspapers. Merely because the small cardamom was wrapped in Nepali newspapers, unless supported by other material evidence, there cannot be a presumption of foreign origin. The Revenue should have collected better evidence to establish its case with regard to foreign origin. The finding of facts of two forums below, does not seem to suffer from any perversity or substantial illegality. No substantial question of law is involved to entertain the present reference u/s 130-A of the Act. There appears to be no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly deleted the imposed penalty in the case.

The present reference is accordingly dismissed in limine.