The burden of proof in customs seizures lies with the appellant, who must demonstrate improper valuation or legality of confiscation; failure to substantiate claims results in dismissal of appeal.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, “the Customs Act”) questioning the value of goods for assessment.

2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are as under:

A. On the night of 20^th/21^st December, 2018, the officers from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short, “DRI”), Delhi Zonal Unit based on a specific intelligence inputs, as regards the foreign origin cigarettes being smuggled and stored at a godown, placed the godown area under surveillance.

B. During the early hours of 21^st December, 2018, a light commercial vehicle, Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. UP- 21-BN-5207, was intercepted by the said unit while the cartons containing foreign origin cigarettes were being unloaded. Since in the godowns, so also in the vehicle, the said cigarette cartons were traced, a Punchnama dated 21^st December, 2018 was drawn recording entire details and recovery of 150 cigarettes cartons from the aforesaid light commercial vehicle and 33 cartons from the godown in question.

C. The present appellant was present at the spot of the incident and was, accordingly, detained and his statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act during said period.

D. It was evaluated that the total 25,01,200 cigarette sticks of foreign origin were seized from the aforesaid consignment.

E. The same has led to the show cause notice dated 07^th June, 2019 being served on the appellant, which includes the entire details of consignment seized with the relevant Punchnama and other documents, the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act including that of appellant and the other incriminating material found on the spot. The show cause notice was based on the violation of provisions of Section 2 (33) of the Customs Act (prohibited goods) which includes goods import or export of which is subject to prohibition under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force; Section 2 (39) of the Customs Act (Smuggling); Section 110 of the Customs Act (Seizure of goods, documents and things; Section 111 of the Customs Act (confiscation of improperly imported goods); Section 123 of the Customs Act (burden of proof in certain cases); and the allied notifications; Section 112 of the Customs Act (penalty for improper importation of goods); Section 18(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009; Proviso to Rule 3(1)(b) of the Cigarettes and other tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008; Section 7 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; Section 8 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; Para 6 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs Circular No.09/2017-Customs; and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

F. The appellant through reply dated 07^th September, 2019 to the show cause notice, denied the allegations against him and submitted that he is not liable for the action as proposed under the show cause notice.

G. Based on the show cause notice, explanation tendered by the appellant, other material available on record, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Customs (Preventive), Delhi passed following order-in-original dated 20^th November, 2019 against the appellant:

“(i) I order for absolute confiscation of smuggled25,01,200 sticks of foreign original cigarettes (packed in 18