9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Higher valuation, fine, and penalty adjudged against the appellants for mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Comprehensive Analysis: The appellants imported thin-wall bearings from the U.K., declaring values lower than the prices in the published catalogue price list for India. The authorities found discrepancies and enhanced the value to the listed prices, leading to a charge of mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The Collector ordered confiscation of goods, redemption on payment of a fine, and imposed a penalty. The Central Board of Excise and Customs reduced the redemption fine and penalty but upheld the charge. The appellants appealed, arguing that mis-declaration required positive evidence of mens rea and that Section 111(m) did not apply to their case as it was not about over-invoiced imports. During the hearing, the appellants contended that the burden of proof in penalty proceedings is higher, requiring evidence of mens rea. They argued that the importer only needed to declare the invoice value, not the deemed value, and cited an amendment to Section 111(m) to support their case. They also raised procedural issues regarding evidence used against them without prior notice. The Tribunal acknowledged the higher burden of proof in penalty proceedings but emphasized that evidence need not be foolproof. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments to highlight that mens rea is not essential for economic offenses and that under-invoicing is a serious offense. The format of the bill of entry required importers to declare both value and invoice price, with "value" defined in the Customs Act. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that they were not required to declare the value as defined, emphasizing that the importer's awareness of market prices is expected. The Tribunal also dismissed the appellants' reliance on the Objects and Reasons of the Bill, stating that the amended Section 111(m) was clear in its scope and did not require interpretation based on pre-amendment disputes. The Tribunal found a breach of natural justice in using evidence without prior notice and remanded the case to the Collector for re-adjudication. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Collector to conduct a fresh adjudication considering the principles of natural justice and expediting the proceedings.
|
