2005 (5) TMI 434 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Commissioner's order, Additional evidence sought in miscellaneous application, Value determination of imported car, Confiscation under Customs Act, Penalty imposition, Enhancement of fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. Revenue's Appeal Against Commissioner's Order:
The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order regarding the value determination of an imported car. The Commissioner confiscated the car under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act due to misdeclaration of value. The Revenue contested the decision, seeking a revision of the value based on additional evidence gathered during departmental proceedings.

2. Additional Evidence Sought in Miscellaneous Application:
The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application to introduce new evidence indicating the importer's alleged fraudulent activities. However, the Tribunal rejected the application, citing that the evidence was not available to the Commissioner during adjudication. Referring to a previous case law, the Tribunal emphasized that evidence not part of the record before the lower authority is inadmissible as additional evidence.

3. Value Determination of Imported Car:
The Commissioner rejected the declared value of the imported car and determined the value based on a certificate issued by an authorized dealer, which was confirmed by Mumbai Custom House. Despite the Revenue's plea for further revision of value, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that value cannot be repeatedly revised based on new evidence collected post-adjudication.

4. Confiscation under Customs Act and Penalty Imposition:
The Commissioner confiscated the car under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,50,000, along with a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 112. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's plea for enhancement of the fine, stating that the imposed fine was within the norm and applicable to individual imports.

5. Enhancement of Fine and Penalty:
The Revenue sought an increase in the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, arguing that certain details were not known at the time of adjudication. However, the Tribunal ruled against enhancing the penalty, stating that new information post-decision cannot be a basis for penalty revision. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's plea on this count.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both the miscellaneous application and the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision on the value determination, confiscation, and penalty imposition. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence available during adjudication and rejected attempts to introduce new evidence post-decision for value revision or penalty enhancement.