IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.1 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.909/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2016-17 dated 28.03.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs,Central Excise & Service Tax,Patna]

Shri Tarun Kumar Poddar (78, Nagar Palika, Jogbani Anchal, PO-Jogbani, Dist-Araria, Pin-854318)

Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Patna (C.R.Building, 2^nd Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-800001)

Respondent APPERANCE :

Mr.N.K.Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Faiz Ahmed, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR.K.ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.76535/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 12 JUNE 2025 DATE OF DECISION : 12 JUNE 2025 Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for confiscation of goods in question allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and imposition of penalty on the appellant.

2. The facts of the case are that the proceedings were initiated against the appellant by interception of Cut Betel Nuts, which were alleged to be of third country origin and smuggled from Nepal into India. Hence, the impugned goods along with vehicle used for illegal transportation of the impugned goods, which were subsequently seized. 2.1 Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant wherein it has been proposed to confiscate the goods in question under the provisions of Section 111(b) and 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and to impose penalty under the Customs Act.

2.2 The Adjudicating Authority held that the goods question were to be released as the cash security deposit @ Rs.60/- per Kg. was paid by the appellant. Such cash security deposit @ Rs.60/- per Kg was appropriated towards redemption fine and it was also ordered to pay Customs duty as applicable and a redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- was also imposed on the appellant.

2.3 The said order was also challenged before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), who affirmed the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

Against the said order, the appellant is before us.

3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has purchased the said quantity from the Release Order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (P) Division, Muzuffarpur on 30.10.2014 wherein Cut Betal Nut were e-auctioned and the appellant purchased the Cut Betal Nut quantity of 14734 kgs. and 1160 Kgs. Out of the said quantity, 6900 Kgs. of Cut Betal Nut was sold by the appellant to M/s Kumar Sales, Mukundpur, Delhi and invoice to that effect was also generated. Therefore, the appellant is the owner of the said goods, which was purchased by the appellant under e-auction by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (P) Division, Muzuffarpur. He further submits that the goods in question are neither prohibited nor restricted goods and also not notified items in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the onus lies on the respondent to prove that the goods in question are of foreign origin, which the respondent failed to do so. In that circumstances, no proceedings were sustainable against the appellant.

4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, has justified the impugned order.

5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions.

6. We find that the appellant has produced the Release Order, which shows that the appellant has purchased the Cut Betel Nut weighing

14734 kgs. and 1160 kgs through e-auction. For better appreciation of facts, the said Release Order is extracted herein below :

7. Out of the said quantity, 6900 kgs. of Cut Betel Nut was sold by the appellant on 03.02.2015 to M/s Kumar Sales, Mukundpur, Delhi.

The said invoice is also extracted herein below :

8. We find that the goods which was under transportation, were intercepted by the Revenue on the premises that the same is a smuggled one, but the item in question is neither prohibited nor restricted nor notified i