2012 (11) TMI 970 - AT - Customs

Penalty evasion of duty anti-dumping duty import of machine invoice packing list and certificate of origin showed that they had imported the injection moulding machine of Malaysian origin Held that - On examination of the machine, it was found that the machine carried various marks indicating country of origin to be China - Notification 47/09 dated 12.5.09 which imposed anti-dumping duty @ 223% ad varolem on various goods including injection moulding machines imported from China - appellant has produced a false certificate of origin with an intent to evade payment of anti-dumping duty, the penalties on the appellants are justified Confiscation of the goods and also imposition of redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs in lieu of confiscation upheld. A penalty of Rs.15 lakhs each has been imposed on the appellant firm and its partner, Mr.Ashok Jain, under the provisions of Section 112(a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - partner, Shri Ashok Jain is the main person behind the attempt to evade import duty. Therefore, he is also liable to penalty under the above provisions as the act has been committed with a deliberate intent to evade payment of duty

Issues:
1. Determination of country of origin for imported goods.
2. Imposition of anti-dumping duty under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.

Issue 1: Determination of country of origin for imported goods
The case involved the import of a thermo plastic injection moulding machine under the EPCG scheme, where discrepancies arose regarding the country of origin. The appellant contended that the goods were of Malaysian origin based on certificates of origin, while the investigating authority found evidence suggesting Chinese origin. The certificates of origin presented were questioned due to inconsistencies in signatures and lack of verification of information accuracy. The partner of the importing firm admitted the Chinese origin of the machine, further supporting the investigating authority's findings. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the goods were of Chinese origin, subject to anti-dumping duty under Notification 47/09 dated 12.5.09.

Issue 2: Imposition of anti-dumping duty under Customs Act, 1962
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of anti-dumping duty under the Customs Act, amounting to Rs.31,73,864/-, based on the findings that the goods were misdeclared as to their country of origin. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the appellant produced a false certificate of origin with the intent to evade payment of anti-dumping duty. The penalties imposed on the appellant firm and its partner were considered justified under Section 112(a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the deliberate attempt to evade duty.

Issue 3: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties
The adjudicating authority confiscated the imported machinery valued at Rs.13,88,761/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, providing an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.5 lakhs. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and redemption fine, considering it reasonable. Additionally, penalties of Rs.15 lakhs each were imposed on the appellant firm and its partner for producing false certificates of origin to evade duty. The partner was specifically held liable for his involvement in the attempt to evade import duty. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions on confiscation, penalties, and duty imposition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities regarding the determination of country of origin, imposition of anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The appellant's appeal was rejected, and the customs authorities were directed to allow warehousing of the goods in a customs bonded warehouse to prevent demurrage.

← Previous Next →