9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 234 - AT - CustomsMis-declaration of goods - Revenue contended that assesse failed to disclose source of procurement of Muriate of Potash exported by shipping bills - Held that - Revenue was defrauded by the conduct of the assesse who failed to come out with clean hands to show that there was no mis-declaration, no illegal export, no DEPB claim was made fraudulently, goods were exported obtaining licence and there were procurement from known source and goods were not Muriate of Potash and such goods were not out of imports made for making illegal export to be enriched at the cost of Revenue UOI v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. 1996 (8) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Fraud committed against Revenue void all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. Limitation of time barred Held that - Adjudications do not suffer from time bar where fraud surfaces - CC. v. Candid Enterprises 2001 (3) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Lapse of time does not convert an illegitimate transaction to be otherwise and plea of time bar was not tenable. Waiver of pre deposit 40 lakhs were ordered to be submitted upon such submission rest was waiver till the disposal Decided against assesse.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification and valuation of exported goods. 2. Alleged mis-declaration and violation of Customs and EXIM policies. 3. Imposition of penalty and adjudication process. 4. Request for waiver of pre-deposit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification and Valuation of Exported Goods: The appellant contested the Customs authority's reclassification of 23,601 MT of industrial salt as Muriate of Potash (MOP) and the enhancement of its value from Rs.19.57 per kg to Rs.35 per kg. The Customs authority's valuation was deemed arbitrary, especially since the auction of the live consignment fetched only Rs.3 per kg. The appellant argued that the goods were not MOP and that the classification change was baseless. 2. Alleged Mis-declaration and Violation of Customs and EXIM Policies: The Customs authority accused the appellant of exporting MOP under the guise of industrial salt, violating Customs law and EXIM Policy. It was alleged that the appellant did not disclose the source of MOP, which is a restricted item requiring a license for export. The investigation revealed that the goods contained more than 60% Potassium Chloride, classifiable under CTH 31042000 as a fertilizer. The appellant's mis-declaration led to significant revenue loss and contravened the Fertilizer Control Order. 3. Imposition of Penalty and Adjudication Process: The Customs authority imposed a penalty of Rs.75 lakhs on the appellant for the alleged illegal export of MOP. The adjudication was based on evidence from the investigation, including statements from the appellant and other involved parties. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant engaged in fraudulent activities by mis-declaring the goods and failing to produce the necessary export licenses. The evidence suggested that the appellant exported MOP illegally, defrauding the Customs. 4. Request for Waiver of Pre-deposit: The appellant sought a waiver of the pre-deposit, arguing that the penalty was exorbitant and the adjudication was biased. However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of pre-deposit as a rule of law, citing various Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence to counter the allegations and did not come clean about the source of procurement. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.40 lakhs within four weeks, with the balance demand stayed during the appeal's pendency. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Customs authority's reclassification and valuation of the goods, finding substantial evidence of mis-declaration and violation of export norms. The appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit was partially granted, with a directive to deposit Rs.40 lakhs to proceed with the appeal. The judgment emphasized the seriousness of fraud against Revenue and the necessity of adhering to legal procedures and requirements.
|
