2013 (11) TMI 636 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Import of used injection moulding machine - Undervaluation of goods - Demand of differential duty - Held that - Differential duty of Rs.12,72,620 is based on the invoice bearing the signature of the concerned supplier or person recovered from the e-mail of the applicant. Regarding the balance amount, it was proceeded on the basis of e-mail corresponding to dates of entries made under the heading INVOICE in statement of accounts. The contention of the learned counsel is that the demand in respect of the balance amount, the said documents are not correlating with the Bills of Entry - The applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case for total waiver - Stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of predeposit of duty
2. Undervaluation of imported goods
3. Evidence and documents relating to differential duty
4. Prima facie case for total waiver
5. Amount to be deposited and stay on recovery

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application for the waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs.80,07,515/- along with interest and penalty by the applicant. The applicant had imported a used injection moulding machine, and after investigation by the DRI, it was found that the goods were undervalued. The adjudicating authority re-determined the value of previous imports, resulting in a differential duty of Rs.12,72,620/- based on specific evidence from invoices and emails.

2. The differential duty was found to be related to invoices recovered from the applicant's email and the supplier, indicating undervaluation in the imports. The applicant contested the demand for the balance amount, arguing that the documents did not correlate with the Bills of Entry. The respondent claimed that the undervalued amount was collected through illegal channels and provided explanations regarding the relevance of specific documents to the imports.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented, noting the specific evidence for certain imports but finding merit in the respondent's submissions for other imports. The applicant had already deposited a partial sum and provided a bank guarantee. However, the Tribunal determined that a further deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- was required within six weeks to waive the balance amount of dues arising from the impugned order. The recovery was stayed pending the appeal's disposal, providing relief to the applicant while ensuring compliance with the duty requirements.

This judgment illustrates the Tribunal's careful consideration of evidence, legal arguments, and financial obligations in determining the waiver of predeposit and stay on recovery in a case involving undervaluation of imported goods. The decision balances the interests of the applicant with the need for duty compliance, emphasizing the importance of substantiated evidence and financial commitments in such matters.