2014 (1) TMI 795 - HC - Customs

Evasion of custom duty - Suppression of facts - Non declaration of dutiable goods - Confiscation of 14500 Pound gold and diamond - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that - Bill which was found from the possession of the petitioner No.2 - Meenaben Ashokkumar Patel, the valuation of the jewellery in question is mentioned as 14,500 British Pounds. Not only that even the VAT refund was received from the British authority considering the valuation of the jewellery in question at 14,500 British Pound. Under the circumstances, when the very petitioners for the purpose of getting VAT Refund from the British authority put the valuation of the jewellery in question at 14,500 British Pound, thereafter it is not open for them to contend that the valuation of the jewellery in question is less. The petitioners cannot be permitted to take benefit of their-own misrepresentation. If the contention on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, it would be giving a premium to such a dishonesty on the part of the petitioners of putting higher valuation for the purpose of getting VAT refund from the British Authority and the same would tantamount to giving a premium to the illegality committed by the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the Bill No.p 21288 dtd. 26/6/2010 issued by M/s. P.B.L. Jewellers Ltd. in the name of Meenaben A. Patel -petitioner No.2 herein, for the purchase of the jewellery in question, which was found from the possession of the petitioner No.2 and considering the valuation mentioned therein, no illegality has been committed by the authorities below in considering the valuation of the jewellery in question at 14,500 British Pound and consequently no error and/or has been committed in passing the order of confiscation and redemption - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned order reducing penalty.
2. Valuation of diamond jewellery for customs duty.
3. Confiscation and penalty under Customs Act.
4. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and revision application.
5. Dispute over valuation of jewellery for VAT refund.
6. Adjudicating authority's decision on valuation.
7. Petitioner's contention on valuation and misrepresentation.
8. Legality of authorities' actions and orders.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioners challenged the impugned order reducing the penalty imposed by the revisional authority. The revisional authority set aside the penalty on one petitioner and reduced the penalty on the other petitioner, leading to the present Special Civil Application.

Issue 2: The dispute arose regarding the valuation of diamond jewellery for customs duty purposes. The petitioners argued that the valuation mentioned in the Bill was inflated to benefit from a higher VAT refund. The adjudicating authority upheld the valuation at 14,500 British Pounds, considering the Bill and VAT refund received.

Issue 3: The authorities invoked Sections 111(d), 111(l), and 111m of the Customs Act for the confiscation of the diamond jewellery. Additionally, penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were imposed on the petitioners for misdeclaring and undeclaring the jewellery to evade customs duty.

Issue 4: The petitioners appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who modified the original order concerning the demand for interest. The Commissioner allowed redemption of goods on payment of fines and penalties, leading to the petitioners filing revision applications.

Issue 5: The petitioners contended that the jewellery's actual value was less than the stated amount for VAT refund. They argued that an approved government valuer should have assessed the jewellery's value to avoid discrepancies.

Issue 6: The adjudicating authority upheld the valuation based on the Bill found with one of the petitioners and the VAT refund claimed. The authority did not find any irregularity in the valuation process.

Issue 7: The petitioners' argument that the valuation was inflated for VAT refund purposes was rejected. The court emphasized that the petitioners could not benefit from their misrepresentation and dishonesty in valuation.

Issue 8: The court concluded that the authorities did not err in considering the valuation of the jewellery at 14,500 British Pounds. Upholding the orders of confiscation and redemption, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the valuation and the subsequent penalties imposed.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the petitioners' challenges, valuation disputes, confiscation under the Customs Act, appeal process, and the court's final decision on the matter.