ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of personal penalties of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand)on each of the appellant, I take up both the appeals for disposal with the consent of both the sides.
2. Betel nuts of 37,000 value were seized by the customs officers on 14.11.97 from the roof of a bus as unclaimed. On 24.1197 Shri M.Das claimed the ownership of the goods in question and enclosed the receipt of Sharma Travels for transportation of the betel nuts. He also enclosed purchase memo of the goods from M/s. Laxmi Narayan Bhandar of Siliguri.
3. On the above facts the appellant Shri M.Das, who claimed to be the owner of the goods and Shri Nirmal Bose, owner of M/s. Laxmi Narayan Bhandar were served with a show cause notice on 17.3.98 proposing confiscation of the betel nuts and imposition of personal penalties upon both the appellants. The said show cause notice culminated into the impugned order passed by the original adjudicating authority. On an appeal against the above order did not succeed before Commissioner(Appeals). Hence the present appeal.
4. After hearing Shri K.P.Dey, ld.adv. and Shri V.K.Chaturvedi, ld.SDR I find that the betel nuts in question have been confiscated on he ground that the same are of foreign origin and are smuggled in character. As regards the foreign origin of the betel nuts in question, I find that there is no expert opinion and reliance has been placed on visual examination of the betel nuts. The Tribunal in a number of decisions involving identical issues have held that before holding the betel nuts to be of smuggled nature, the Revenue is required to prove that they are of foreign origin. It is also noted that betel nuts grow in abundance in the eastern part of the country. It is also noted that the betel nuts are non-notified items under the provisions of section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and as such the onus to prove that they are smuggled lies heavily upon the Revenue. The reasoning of the authorities below that the appellants have failed to produce on record sufficient evidence to show the legal acquisition of the betel nuts in question is contrary to the facts on record as also against the settled legal position. accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
Dictated in the court.