2007 (9) TMI 500 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of value in imported goods
2. Allegations of evasion of Customs Duty
3. Financial difficulties of the appellant-company
4. Directors' involvement in the case

Issue 1: Misdeclaration of value in imported goods
The appellant challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs, which rejected the declared value for imported goods, citing misdeclaration. The appellant was accused of suppressing material facts, resulting in a loss to the exchequer. The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,68,73,731, with penalties imposed on the importer and the two Directors. The appellant had voluntarily deposited Rs. 66.5 lakhs during the investigation, which was adjusted against the demand.

Issue 2: Allegations of evasion of Customs Duty
The case involved the importation of spare parts by Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) through the appellant-company. Allegations included under-invoicing, misdeclaration of transaction value, and evasion of Customs Duty amounting to Rs. 1.69 crores. The appellant-company was accused of collecting Customs Duty at inflated rates and failing to pay the duty to the government. The authorities highlighted discrepancies in prices declared to customs compared to actual purchase values.

Issue 3: Financial difficulties of the appellant-company
The appellant-company claimed financial difficulties, presenting a balance sheet to support their contention. The balance sheet indicated net current assets of Rs. 68,93,362.86, with a recoverable amount of Rs. 66,50,000 as customs duty. The appellant argued that their actual current assets were only Rs. 2 lakhs, emphasizing their financial constraints.

Issue 4: Directors' involvement in the case
The Directors of the appellant-company were integral to the case, as they were accused of not disclosing agreements with manufacturers to the Department. The Department raised concerns about the assets owned by the Directors, pointing out discrepancies in the information provided. The Directors were directed to pre-deposit a specified amount, failing which their appeals would be dismissed.

In the judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the deep links between the appellant-company and the manufacturers, highlighting the interconnected nature of the transactions. The Tribunal considered evidence related to pricing, manufacturer invoices, and agreements to determine the duty liability. Despite the appellant-company's plea of financial hardship, the Tribunal directed the Directors to make pre-deposits, emphasizing their role in the episode. The Tribunal disposed of the stay applications, setting specific requirements for the appellant-company and the Directors to comply with the order.