2012 (9) TMI 745 - HC - Customs

Penalty - misdeclaration alleged that misdeclaration of age of machinery so as to get import benefit in the Bills of entry Held that - Import of machinery after obtaining the requisite permission and observing the formalities - approval given by the Government of India, the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer and what is mentioned in the bill of entry are all identical. At the time the machinery was removed from Mysore to Bangalore, the said Mr. Vinaya Chandra was not in office - Under these circumstances, holding him liable for misdescription on the statement of the co-noticee and the officials of the department, was not proper penalty set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside penalty imposed on the assessee for misdeclaration.
2. Proper investigation and benefit gained by misdeclaration in the Bills of entry.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee for misdeclaration regarding the age of imported machinery. The machinery was imported under the 100% EOU scheme for manufacturing energy-saving florescent tubes. The penalty was levied on the Managing Director for alleged misdeclaration in the bills of entry, stating the machinery was manufactured in 1990 when it was actually manufactured in 1964-65. The Tribunal found that the machinery was capable of producing the required goods, and the description in the bills of entry matched the approval by the Government of India. Additionally, a Chartered Engineer's certificate confirmed the machinery's manufacture in 1985. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was unjustified based on the evidence provided and set it aside.

2. The High Court analyzed the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal. Firstly, whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the penalty for misdeclaration of the machinery's age to obtain import benefits. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the machinery was imported following all necessary procedures and approvals, and the misdeclaration was not proven to be intentional. Secondly, whether the investigation was conducted properly and if the assessee gained from the misdeclaration. The Court found that the evidence showed no benefit was gained from the alleged misdeclaration, and the decision to impose the penalty was not supported by legal evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's order to set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee for misdeclaration, emphasizing the lack of proper evidence supporting the penalty imposition and the absence of any benefit gained from the alleged misdeclaration.