2006 (6) TMI 55 - AT - Customs

Demand Alleged that there is difference in the prices of various goods as shown in the quotation of foreign suppliers and of the declared invoices After go through the detail authority confirmed the demand of duty

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of Customs duty demand against M/s. Connectronics & Cables Pvt. Ltd.
2. Imposition of personal penalties on individuals.
3. Revenue's appeal against the dropping of duty demand in Chart "D".
4. Validity of evidence used for undervaluation claims.
5. Re-examination of duty demand in Chart "D".
6. Quantum of penalties based on the outcome of de novo proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Customs duty demand against M/s. Connectronics & Cables Pvt. Ltd.:
The Commissioner confirmed a Customs duty demand of Rs. 34,32,122/- against M/s. Connectronics & Cables Pvt. Ltd., based on incriminating documents and statements obtained during searches. The documents included a statement of accounts from Mirtex Enterprises (HK) Ltd., Taiwan, showing discrepancies between the declared and actual prices of imported goods. The Tribunal upheld this confirmation, considering the statement of accounts as reliable evidence of undervaluation.

2. Imposition of personal penalties on individuals:
Personal penalties were imposed on Shri Vinod Kumar Chawla (Rs. 75 lakhs) and Shri Asheesh Chawla (Rs. 50 lakhs) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The penalties were based on their involvement in the undervaluation scheme, as evidenced by their statements and the seized documents. The Tribunal did not finalize the quantum of penalties, leaving it open for re-quantification based on the outcome of the de novo proceedings.

3. Revenue's appeal against the dropping of duty demand in Chart "D":
The Commissioner dropped the duty demand of Rs. 1,31,46,082/- in Chart "D" due to a lack of specific evidence, such as quotations or statements of accounts proving undervaluation. The revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the goods in Chart "D" were identical to those in Charts "A" and "B". The Tribunal remanded this issue to the Commissioner for re-examination, directing the application of the same values if the goods were indeed identical.

4. Validity of evidence used for undervaluation claims:
The Tribunal addressed the appellants' contention that the evidence (fax messages and quotations) could not be the sole basis for undervaluation claims. However, it upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the statement of accounts and the appellants' admissions provided substantial evidence of undervaluation. The Tribunal emphasized that the destruction of correspondence by the appellants indicated deliberate undervaluation.

5. Re-examination of duty demand in Chart "D":
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-examine the duty demand in Chart "D" afresh, considering the possibility of applying the same values as in Charts "A" and "B" if the goods were identical. This re-examination was necessary due to the absence of detailed descriptions of the goods in the original charts.

6. Quantum of penalties based on the outcome of de novo proceedings:
The Tribunal left the issue of penalties open for the Commissioner to decide upon re-quantification based on the outcome of the de novo proceedings. The final quantum of penalties would depend on the results of the re-examination of the duty demand in Chart "D".

Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 34,32,122/- and remanded the issue of the dropped demand of Rs. 1,31,46,082/- for re-examination. The quantum of penalties was left open for re-quantification based on the de novo proceedings. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.