2004 (3) TMI 565 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged under-invoicing and misdeclaration of camera values.
2. Demand for differential customs duty.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
4. Validity and reliability of evidence, including export declarations and seized documents.
5. Imposition of redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Under-invoicing and Misdeclaration of Camera Values:
The appellants imported four consignments of cameras during 1996-97, which were later alleged to be undervalued and misdeclared, leading to customs duty evasion. The Additional Director General, DRI, Chennai, issued a Show-cause Notice on 14th October 1999, detailing the undervaluation and duty evasion. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, upheld the charges based on reports from Hong Kong Customs, which indicated higher values than those declared in the invoices. The Commissioner also relied on documents seized from the importers and statements from Shri Sanjeev Arora, who admitted to under-invoicing due to high customs duty.

2. Demand for Differential Customs Duty:
The Commissioner demanded the short-levied duty of approximately Rs. 29 lakhs under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The appellants had remitted Rs. 12.5 lakhs as differential duty during the investigation. The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that the prices declared in the import invoices were not the correct transaction values. The values reported by Hong Kong Customs, based on their investigation, were accepted for customs assessment.

3. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
The Commissioner confiscated the goods and imposed a fine of Rs. 13 lakhs, along with penalties on various appellants. The Tribunal found that the under-valuation was established by documentary evidence and confirmed by oral testimony. The penalties imposed were deemed fully justified by the evidence on record.

4. Validity and Reliability of Evidence:
The appellants contested the authenticity of the export declarations and other documents, arguing that they were not authenticated by Hong Kong Customs and could not form the basis for a finding of misdeclaration. They cited several decisions supporting their contention. However, the Tribunal noted that the evidence covered transactions at both ends-the importer in India and the supplier in Hong Kong. The seized documents and correspondence indicated a deliberate attempt to conceal the real identity and value of the goods. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the values declared in the import invoices were false and aimed at evading customs duty.

5. Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The Tribunal acknowledged the merit in the appellants' submission regarding the imposition of redemption fine. Since the goods had been assessed and cleared by Customs authorities without provisional clearances or bonds, the provisions relating to confiscation and redemption fine could not apply. The Tribunal referenced its decision in the case of Ramkhazana Electronic & Ors. v. C.C. AIR Cargo, Jaipur, and set aside the redemption fine.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed concerning the redemption fine, which was set aside. The impugned order was otherwise confirmed, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.