Page 270 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

916 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Confiscation (Contd.)
— of goods imported at unauthorized port when set aside by permitting
transshipment to authorized port - See under IMPORT ............. 303
— of goods in absence of acceptable defence is administrative overreach -
See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ....................... 849
— of seized Areca Nuts allegedly smuggled from Nepal not sustainable on
lack of evidence - See under SEIZED GOODS .................. 237
— of seized gold not sustainable as accused discharged primary burden of
its acquisition by producing Bills - See under GOLD SMUGGLING ...... 372
— of seized Gold not sustainable as burden of proof of licit acquisition
discharged by accused - See under SMUGGLING ................ 606
— Overvaluation established with money flow to beneficiaries, confiscation
sustainable - See under MISDECLARATION ................... 849
— redemption fine and penalty - Goods imported by appellant produced in
a workshop by mixing sand and gold and various materials are man-
made gold nuggets mixed with other metals and not gold ore, liable to
confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 -
Duty evaded in this consignment being approximately ` 18 lakhs,
redemption fine reduced to ` 15 lakhs - Penalty of ` 10 lakhs, imposed
under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the confiscated
consignment upheld — Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
(Tri. - Ahmd.) ...................................... 417
— redemption fine and penalty - Goods imported in excess of what was
declared in the Bills of Entry and other documents - Goods imported
from Bangladesh as per the South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) -
Only the excess quantity of goods which have been imported by them
without declaring in any of the documents not covered by SAFTA
certificate and in violation of Customs Act, 1962 - Excess goods and not
the entire consignment liable to confiscation under Sections 111(e) and
111(l) ibid - Amount of redemption fine as well as the penalties imposed
by the impugned order upon the appellants need to be proportionately
reduced - Sections 112 and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 — Bikash Saha v.
Principal Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) ............... 884
— redemption fine and penalty - Test report obtained on 21-9-2006,
apparently in favour of the department, cannot be applied retrospectively
and to the goods cleared before the test report - Consequently,
confiscation and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation not justified, no
mala fide intention of the appellants being evident - However,
Department free to collect the applicable duty on the said goods -
Extended period being not invokable, penalty under Section 11AC of
Central Excise Act, 1944 set aside - Penalty imposed on Appellant
Company under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and penalty
imposed on Shri T.C. Vijayan of Usha Traders, Madurai under Rule 26 of
Central Excise Rules, 2002, also set aside — A.R. Trading Company v. Commr. of
C. Ex. (Appeals-II), Bangalore (Tri. - Bang.) ......................... 388
— Smuggled goods - Large cardamom not notified item - Onus to prove that
goods smuggled lies upon Revenue and to be discharged by production
of sufficient and positive evidence - Trade opinion that goods of foreign
origin insufficient especially when assessee produced the purchase
ledger showing purchase of goods from local person located in India -
Trade opinion not to be considered to be an expert opinion - That
cardamom may be of foreign origin by itself not sufficient to hold them to
be of smuggled nature - No evidence to show that cardamoms were
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  270