9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are deliberate undervaluation of imported goods, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, confirmation of demand, imposition of penalties under Section 114A and Section 112 of the Act, failure to produce witnesses for cross-examination, absence of panch witnesses during interception, voluntary nature of appellant's statement, involvement of third party in importation, ownership of imported consignment, and alleged false implication of the sole proprietor. Deliberate Undervaluation of Goods: The Commissioner of Customs held that the importer firm engaged in deliberate undervaluation of goods, leading to confiscation and imposition of a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lacs. Additionally, a demand of Rs. 13,20,827/- was confirmed against the firm with a penalty under Section 114A, and a penalty of Rs. 1 lac was imposed on the sole proprietor under Section 112 of the Act. Grounds of Appeal: The appellants raised several grounds, including failure to produce witnesses for cross-examination, absence of panch witnesses during interception, alleged involuntary nature of the appellant's statement, involvement of a third party in importation, ownership of the imported consignment, and the appellant's claim of being falsely implicated in the case. Cross-Examination and Investigation: The appellants requested cross-examination of seizing officer, panch witnesses, and officers who recorded statements, which was duly considered by the adjudicating authority. The investigation revealed the appellants' involvement in undervaluation to evade customs duty, supported by statements of relevant individuals and price lists of imported products. Investigation Conduct: The examination of the consignment was conducted in the presence of witnesses and a representative of the Airport Authority of India, contradicting the appellants' claim of no panch witnesses being present during the examination. The investigation by the Revenue was deemed to be conducted appropriately. Voluntary Statement and Compliance: The appellant's claim of the statement not being voluntary was refuted based on records showing repeated summons issued for non-compliance. Although the appellant retracted some statements, a subsequent statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act stood unretracted. Despite opportunities, the appellant failed to cooperate with investigating officers. Conclusion: Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found insufficient grounds made out by the appellants, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
|
