Sushant Agrawal Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
In this appeal before the CESTAT Delhi, the appellant challenged the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi’s order dated 21 March 2012 passed in de novo proceedings. The matter originated from searches conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on various firms owned or controlled by the appellant, including S.R. Textiles, Om Textiles, and Hanuman Trading Co. During these searches, fabrics were seized under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, placing the burden on the appellant to prove that the goods were not smuggled.
The appellant had imported fourteen lots of fabrics. Following investigation, the DRI is-sued a Show Cause Notice dated 19 June 2004 proposing confiscation of eight lots measuring 66,253 metres with a market value of Rs. 44,35,030. In response, the appellant submitted several documents asserting that the goods were legitimately imported. However, the Commissioner rejected the documents on the ground that they were not produced during investigation, and proceeded to confiscate the goods and impose penalties.
On appeal, the Tribunal earlier remanded the matter with directions to examine the documents, noting that documentary evidence carries greater weight than oral statements and must be evaluated by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner thereafter passed a fresh order in which he reviewed the documents submitted for each lot. The Commissioner primarily rejected the documents on two grounds: first, that the documents were contrary to the appellant’s statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act during the investigation; and second, that the marks and numbers on the seized goods recorded in the Panchnama did not match those in the Bills of Entry, with many Bills of Entry not containing marks at all.
