2013 (9) TMI 423 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - Demand of differential duty imposing Penalty u/s 112(a) and 112(b) Redemption fine - the vehicle was imported - the assesse declared the price of the vehicle as CIF Held that - The allegation that assesse had not declared the price of optional accessories at the time of importation was not sustainable in the absence of any concrete documentary evidence - The goods were examined and at the time of clearance - it was found that the type of approval certificate/COP was not submitted from the country of origin as required under import licensing Notes to Chapter 87 of ITC (HS) the accessories were optional accessories - at the time of clearance of the car was examined by the officers of the department and as per the report the car was new one and having standard accessories In the absence of any concrete evidence produced by the Revenue at the time of importation of car that there was navigation system installed - it cannot be presumed that navigation system was installed at the time of importation of car. Undervauation of goods - the adjudicating authority has found the value of the similar car was US 30,000 and in the case the appellant had shown the value of the car as US 42,000 Held that - The allegation of undervaluation was not sustainable - the demand raised on account of undervaluation of the car was set aside. Benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 Held that - In the absence of any concrete evidence, it cannot be said the car was old and used - the allegation that the car was old and used was not sustainable - the denial of benefit of notification No. 21/2002 was set aside - the examination report at the time of importation which clearly shows that the car was new one and there was no evidence produced on record that before importation the car was registered anywhere outside India Decided in favor of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported car and imposition of penalty.
2. Appeal against penalty imposed on another individual.
3. Allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported car.
4. Imposition of penalty for aiding and abetting in illegal importation.

Confiscation of Imported Car and Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant filed an appeal against the confiscation of a car imported by his late father, along with a demand for differential duty and penalty. Another appeal was filed against the penalty imposed on a different individual. The car, a Hummer H3, was imported by the appellant's late father, declared at a price of US $42,000 CIF. The car was confiscated due to missing Type Approval Certificate/COP, with a redemption fine and personal penalty imposed. The car was later sold to another individual, leading to an investigation by DRI on allegations of fraudulent importation. The appellant and another individual were issued show-cause notices, leading to appeals against the penalties imposed.

Allegations of Undervaluation and Misdeclaration:
The primary allegations against the appellants were undervaluation and misdeclaration of the imported car. The appellant argued that the declared value was rejected due to optional accessories not listed in the invoice. The appellant contended that the accessories were standard, and the valuation was not misrepresented. The appellant also challenged the allegation of the car being old, stating that it was new and not registered abroad before importation. The appellant provided arguments against the imposition of penalties for aiding and abetting in the importation.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant's defense focused on challenging the allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration by providing evidence that the optional accessories were standard and the car was new. The appellant argued that the valuation was correct and that the car was not old as claimed. The appellant also contested the penalties imposed on the basis of aiding and abetting, stating that arranging for payment of duty does not constitute an offense for penalty under the Customs Act. The arguments presented by both sides were considered, leading to a decision in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal found that the allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration were not sustainable due to lack of concrete evidence. The denial of benefits and imposition of penalties were set aside, and both appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision favored the appellants, setting aside the allegations of undervaluation, misdeclaration, and penalties imposed. The detailed analysis highlighted the lack of concrete evidence to support the allegations and the legal basis for challenging the penalties. The judgment provided a comprehensive review of the issues raised in the appeals, ultimately resulting in a favorable outcome for the appellants.