Anil Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) (CESTAT Kolkata)
The appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, arose from the seizure of 212 bundles of clothes (126 and 86 bundles) on 01.09.2016 while being transported by two trucks from Jagdishpur towards Bettiah. The Revenue alleged that the goods were intended for illegal export to Nepal through non-specified routes. The seizure was based primarily on statements recorded from the truck drivers. The Tribunal noted that Jagdishpur was more than 200 kilometres away from the Indo-Nepal border and that the goods were intercepted well within Indian territory, outside any notified customs area under Sections 7 or 8 of the Customs Act.
It was undisputed that the seized goods were of Indian origin. At the time of seizure, the appellant produced purchase invoices and Suvidha forms dated 31.08.2016 to establish bona fide procurement of the goods on a 60–90 day credit basis, with part payments already made. These documents were verified and found to be genuine. Despite this, the Revenue proceeded with seizure and later ordered confiscation and penalties, also citing the appellant’s lack of an IEC code.
The Tribunal observed that the onus under Section 110 of the Customs Act to establish a reasonable belief for seizure had not been discharged. Mere presumption that the goods were meant for export to Nepal, unsupported by any corroborative evidence, could not justify seizure. A solitary statement could not be the basis for treating the goods as “offending” or for fastening penal consequences. The Tribunal further held that non-possession of an IEC code was irrelevant in circumstances where the goods were of Indian origin, legitimately procured, and merely transiting within India far from the border.
