9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 586 - AT - CustomsWaiver of predeposit of duty - Undervaluation of goods - Held that - It is found on e-mails of applicant to foreign supplier recovered from the seized hard disc, statements etc. that the applicant had been making arrangements for transfer of funds to the manufacturer of goods. The documents were examined through Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) who was cross-examined. It appears that the applicant failed to refute any of the evidences. It is also noted that the applicant admitted undervaluation of 3 Bills of Entry and the value of which was mostly same in the other Bills of Entry. - applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty. - Partial stay granted.
Issues: Application for waiver of predeposit of duty.
Analysis: 1. The applicant filed an application for waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,57,93,792 along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal heard both sides and examined the records. 2. The applicant had imported 44 consignments of self-adhesive tapes between 2004 and 2007. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the goods were undervalued in the Bills of Entry. Evidence from emails to the foreign supplier, statements, and documents recovered from a seized hard disk indicated arrangements for fund transfers to the manufacturer. The Government Examiner of Questioned Documents confirmed the authenticity of the documents. The applicant admitted undervaluation in 3 Bills of Entry, with similar undervaluation patterns in other entries. 3. The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for the complete waiver of the duty, interest, and penalty. Consequently, the applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 45,00,000 within 8 weeks. Upon this deposit, the predeposit of the remaining duty, interest, and penalty would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal process. The applicant was required to report compliance by a specified date. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the evidence presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the waiver of predeposit of duty, interest, and penalty.
|
