2011 (6) TMI 239 - HC - Customs

Penalty - Misdeclaration of the country of origin - Anti-dumping duty - The scrutiny of the material on record would clearly show the fact that appellant was working as Customs Appraiser an was incharge of duty of processing the bill of entry including the disputed bill of entry, is not disputed - When the material on record shows that original bill of invoice which has been produced before the appellant has been changed so as to evade payment of tax and consequential duties, the only inference that can be drawn is that the appellant must have colluded with the said employee of the consignee and the CHA - Held that appreciation of the evidence is neither perverse nor arbitrary so as to call for interference in this appeal and concurrent finding has been rendered by the properly appreciating the material on record which is clearly justified and the original records that are made available which we have perused and accordingly, we hold that no ground is made out for interfering with the order - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Sec.112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Misdeclaration of country of origin to evade duties.
3. Collusion leading to tampering of invoice.
4. Inconsistencies in statements of involved parties.
5. Appellant's awareness and involvement in the offense.
6. Appellate review of evidence and concurrent findings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the Customs Tribunal's decision upholding the penalty imposed under Sec.112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, reducing it from Rs.50,000 to Rs.5,000. The case involved misdeclaration of the country of origin to benefit from trade agreements and avoid Anti-Dumping Duty on imported goods.

2. Specific intelligence revealed that the importer misdeclared the origin of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) from China as Sri Lanka to evade duties. The appellant, a Customs Appraiser, processed the bill of entry facilitating the misdeclaration. The appellant's collusion with the importer and Customs House Agent (CHA) led to tampering of the invoice, ultimately resulting in the evasion of duties.

3. The appellant claimed innocence, arguing that he was unaware of the tampering and processed the entry lawfully. However, the evidence indicated otherwise, showing the appellant's involvement in the offense. The appellant's defense relied on inconsistencies in statements of involved parties, but the court found these arguments unsubstantiated.

4. The court reviewed the evidence, including statements of the CHA and consignee's employee, and found no irregularities in the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence. The concurrent findings established the appellant's complicity in the offense, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

5. The court emphasized that the appellant's position as a Customs Appraiser made him responsible for ensuring accurate processing of entries. The tampering of the invoice and subsequent evasion of duties pointed to the appellant's collusion with the importer and CHA, justifying the penalty imposed.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appellate review confirmed the proper appreciation of evidence and the justified imposition of the penalty based on the appellant's involvement in the offense.