IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.26 of 2006 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA C.R. BUILDING B.C. PATEL PATH, PATNA-1. …………….. Appellant Versus AJAY ROAD LINES (P) LTD. SREMAUTA MARKET, 5TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 519, A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI. …………… Respondent with MA No.27 of 2006 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA C.R. BUILDING B.C. PATEL PATH, PATNA-1. ………… Appellant Versus SHRI UTTAM KUMAR DEBNATH SREMAUTA MARKET, 5TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 519, A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI …………. Respondent with MA No.28 of 2006 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA C.R. BUILDING B.C. PATEL PATH, PATNA-1. …………… Appellant Versus RATAN KUMAR SAHA SREMAUTA MARKET, 5TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 519, A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI ……………… Respondent with MA No.29 of 2006 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA C.R. BUILDING B.C. PATEL PATH, PATNA-1. ………………. Appellant Versus MAA KARNI TRADERS SHREE MANTA MARKET, 5TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 5/9, A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI ……………… Respondent ----------- 9 18.11.2009 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar for the appellant. 2. The Department of Customs, Government of India, has preferred this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, and seeks to challenge the order dated 29.4.2005, passed in CSM No. 106, 107, 108 and 109 of 2004 by Customs, Central 2 Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, whereby the four appeals at the instance of the respondents have been allowed and it has been held that the Revenue has not been able to establish that the Chiknni Supari (processed sliced betel nuts ) is a product of foreign origin other than the Nepal. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. On 8.5.2002, the Customs Officer of Forbesganj, Bihar, had seized 137 bags of chikney supari at Forbesganj, which was suspected to be of foreign origin. Steps were taken for confiscation of the products and penalty. The learned First authority and the learned appellate authority rejected the case of the respondent herein. They preferred separate appeals before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata, which have been allowed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal at the instance of the Revenue. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Tribunal has held that, in order to determine whether or not the item in question is of a foreign origin, the same had been put in plain water, and it was found that colour of the water had changed leading to the conclusion that the goods were of foreign origin. The method adopted by the Revenue has been rejected by the Tribunal as unscientific. Secondly, the Tribunal has further held that Chiknni Supari is not an item covered by Section 123 of 3 the Customs Act, or Chapter IVA of the Act. Therefore, the onus to prove that the goods were smuggled is on the Revenue which has not been discharged. The net result is that the Revenue has not been able to establish that the goods were of foreign origin other than Nepal to be within the mischief of the Act. It may be clarified that betel nuts of Nepalese origin can be imported into India without a licence. On the other hand, ,the case of the respondents is that it is of Indian origin and are grown in abundance in the North East areas of the country. 5. We agree with the reasonings assigned by the Tribunal while allowing the four appeals. There is no merit in the appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )