2016 (10) TMI 1164 - AT - Customs

Anti Dumping duty - fabrication of documents - allegation is that the said Prithvi Granites fabricated documents to show the country of origin to be Taiwan instead of China - Held that - The appellant, M/s. Dixons Cargo and Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of an agent M/s. Tri-link Logistics are in the same footing as of such Tri-link Logistics, who are their principals and hence, the actions of the appellant, M/s. Dixons Cargo and Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. are liable for penal provisions as they did not produce proper documents before the lower authorities. We are of the view that provisions of Section 112(b) gets attracted in this case - M/s. Dixons Cargo and Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. and Shri R. Venkatesh are correctly penalized under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. As regards the appeals filed by Tony Fernandez and Shri Chandrakant Nagesh Hegde, we do not find any merits in the appeals filed by them, accordingly we reject their appeals and uphold the impugned order which imposes penalties on them. Their appeals are rejected. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) for evasion of anti-dumping duty.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Goa, imposing penalties on the appellants for abetting the imports of tiles in violation of anti-dumping duty. The key issue revolved around the imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants were alleged to have fabricated documents to evade anti-dumping duty by misrepresenting the country of origin as Taiwan instead of China.

The appellants contended that penalties were wrongly imposed as Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 did not originally provide for penalties for anti-dumping duty evasion. They relied on precedents such as the Chemo Pulp Tissues case and the Jindal Poly Films Ltd. case to argue against retrospective imposition of penalties. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative cited the Supreme Woollen Mills Ltd. case to support the retrospective applicability of penalties under amended provisions.

Upon examination of the records, it was found that Dixons Cargo and Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. and Shri R. Venkatesh had discrepancies in the country of origin details in their documents. The master bill of lading indicated China as the origin, while the house bill of lading showed Taiwan. The Tribunal held that the appellants failed to fulfill their duties by not addressing the inconsistencies and thus upheld the penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal deemed the initial penalties excessive and reduced them to &8377; 35,000/- for Dixons Cargo and Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. and &8377; 10,000/- for Shri R. Venkatesh.

In contrast, the appeals filed by Tony Fernandez and Shri Chandrakant Nagesh Hegde were dismissed as lacking merit, and the penalties imposed on them were upheld. The Tribunal disposed of all appeals and cross-objections through a common order, pronouncing the decision on 21-10-2016.