2014 (10) TMI 81 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - Undervaluation of goods - Import in the name of partner - Held that - It comes out that natural legal heirs of the ex-partner of the firm namely, Smt. Prabha Sharma, wife of late Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma and Smt. Neelam Sharma, wife of late Shri Surinder Mohan Sharma by way of sworn in affidavit dated 01.12.2011 deposed that they are the legal heirs wives of the partners of the importing firm. Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the affidavit directed they should file bill of entry. there is no force in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the so called legal heir to file B/E and claim for imported goods which have been smuggled and later absolutely confiscated. Absolute confiscation is fully justified as goods were prohibited and could not be released provisionally under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Goods are rightly confiscated absolutely. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues:
1. Non-cooperation of respondents in the judicial process.
2. Appeal against dropping of proceedings by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Grounds of appeal by Revenue: mis-declaration, undervaluation, importation in the name of non-existent partnership firm.
4. Mis-declaration and smuggling of goods.
5. Confiscation of goods due to mis-declaration and smuggling.
6. Dissolution of partnership concern and valuation of goods.
7. Legal heirs claiming ownership of the goods.
8. Decision on the appeal filed by Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlights the lack of cooperation from the respondents in the judicial process, leading to the decision to proceed with the appeal with the assistance of the Departmental Representative (DR).

2. The Revenue appealed against the dropping of proceedings by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding mis-declaration, undervaluation, and importation in the name of a non-existent partnership firm.

3. The grounds of appeal by Revenue included mis-declaration of goods, undervaluation, and importation in the name of a non-existent partnership firm. The goods were found to be different from what was declared in the bill of lading.

4. The judgment reveals that the imported goods were fraudulently misdeclared to smuggle items without paying customs duty, leading to the confiscation of the goods due to the clear intent to deceive customs authorities.

5. Despite multiple opportunities given to the importer to cooperate, the judgment concludes that the goods were rightfully confiscated due to mis-declaration and attempted smuggling, without imposing penalties on the deceased partners.

6. The issue of dissolution of the partnership concern was raised, noting that both partners had passed away before importation. The valuation of the goods was found to be significantly higher than the declared value, indicating undervaluation.

7. The legal heirs of the deceased partners claimed ownership of the goods, but the judgment rejected this claim due to the dissolution of the partnership and the observed smuggling activities, leading to the absolute confiscation of the goods.

8. Ultimately, the judgment set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal filed by Revenue, affirming the absolute confiscation of the goods due to mis-declaration and smuggling activities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the legal rationale behind the decision.

← Previous Next →