1. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order inasmuch as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Patna, vide which he has confiscated 459 bags of betel-nuts with an option to the appellants M/s. Kamakheya Trading Co. to redeem the 341 bags on payment of a fine of Rs. 6.00 lakh (Rupees six lakh) and another option to M/s. Radha Kishan Ramesh Kumar to redeem 118 bags of betel-nuts on payment of a fine of Rs. 2.00 lakh (Rupees two lakh).
The truck transporting the said betel-nuts has also been confiscated with an option to the owner to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh). In addition, personal penalties as shown below have been imposed upon the various persons :-(i) M/s. Bikaner Assam Roadlines Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand)(ii) Shri Sushil Kumar Daga Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand)(iii) M/s.
Radha Kishan Ramesh Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) Kumar(iv) M/s. Kamakheya Trading Co.
Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand)(v) Shri Shivanand Roy Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand)(vi) Shri Kushal Burman Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) 2. Shri A. Sinha, Consultant for the appellants submits that the betel-nuts have been confiscated on the alleged findings that the same are of foreign origin and of smuggled nature. He submits that for arriving at the foreign origin character of the betel-nuts, the adjudicating authority has relied upon the trade opinion and upon the fact that on washing, the brown colour on the suparis washed away. He submits that the Tribunal in a number of cases has held that trade opinion cannot be equated with expert opinion about the foreign origin of the goods. Similarly, washing of the brown colour on being dipped in the water, cannot lead to the conclusion that the suparis were of foreign origin and as such, he submits that the Revenue has not satisfied the basic principle to hold the goods to be of foreign origin before holding the same to be of contraband character.
3. Shri Sinha also submits that the betel-nuts are non-notified items and as such, the Revenue has to produce the evidence to show that the same are smuggled. He also submits that relevant documents showing purchase of the goods and payment thereof etc., have been placed on record. They are not found to be false by the adjudicating authority.
As such, the confiscation was not justified. He also submits that the Tribunal in an earlier cases, has observed that betel-nuts are grown in abundance in the Eastern Region of the country. The goods in question were of Assamese origin and there is no evidence to the contrary.
4. After hearing the learned JDR, I find that the adjudicating authority has gone by certain circumstantial evidences like trade opinion, release of brown colour on being dipped into the water, secret information about the movement of betel-nuts, alert circulars showing the possibility of movement of betel-nuts of third country origin in huge quantity from Nepal and the statements of the drivers that the goods were loaded from Guwahati, whereas the drivers were employees of the transport company situated at Siliguri. I find that all the above evidences relied upon by the adjudicating authority were made the basis for holding the betel-nuts to be of foreign origin or of smuggled character. The goods being non-notified items, the Revenue is under an obligation to show some positive evidence about the smuggled character of the goods. There being no such evidence on record, the findings of the contraband nature of the goods are not sustainable. The same are accordingly set aside.
5. Inasmuch as the confiscation of the betel-nuts has been set aside, there is no warrant for confiscation of the vehicle or for imposition of personal penalties upon the various persons. Accordingly, I set aside the confiscation of the truck and the penalties upon the various persons In nutshell, all the appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants.