2018 (4) TMI 1650 - CGOVT - Customs

Smuggling - trolley loaded with several baggages was diverted from the arrival area of the airport to the departure area of the airport - baggage rules - Jurisdiction - competency of Deputy Commissioner of Customs to file a revision application against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - A Review Order No. 121/2013, dated 18-12-2013 has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs directing and authorizing the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to file the present revision application and thus the applicant has properly filed the revision application before the Government. On merit, the respondent has pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered all relevant facts and the order passed by him is as per law. Valuation of goods - Held that - The respondent did not have any purchase invoices in respect of the imported goods at the time of his arrival in Delhi and as a result the Revenue was compelled to adopt the internet based value for the goods in this case. But while adopting the internet based value the Additional Commissioner has been fair enough to reduce the internet value by 30%, apparently because internet based values are further bargained and discounts upto 30% are generally given by the sellers in Singapore or other countries. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has questioned the validity of the internet based value in the first place. But at the same time he has accepted the same internet based value after allowing reduction to the extent of 55% in the internet prices by giving the reason of duty incidence and other elements inbuilt in the internet value of the goods. Thus the Commissioner (Appeals) s view on the acceptability of the internet price of the goods is self-contradictory. From the OIA it is also evident that interest on duty of Customs has been set aside in just one sentence and without giving any proper justification. The Commissioner (Appeals) has only stated that since the goods are not released the issue of interest does not arise. But his conclusion is completely misplaced as the payment of interest has nothing to do with the redemption of the goods by the respondent and it is automatically payable on customs duty from the date the customs duty was payable by the respondent to the Department - Undoubtedly in this case the customs duty was payable by the respondent on 24-3-2011 when the goods were illegally brought from Singapore to Delhi Airport. But as the duty of customs has not been paid on these imported goods since 24-3-2011, interest is liable to be paid for the delay in paying the customs duty - This view does not require any further elaboration in the light of Section 28AA of the Customs Act as per which a person who is liable to pay duty under Section 28 is also liable to pay interest at the rate fixed under sub-section (2) whether such payment is made voluntary or after determination of the duty under Section 28. The Government upholds the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner in his order and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) s Order in toto - revision application allowed.

Issues:
1. Reduction in value, fine, penalty, and interest by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Competency of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to file a revision application.
3. Valuation of goods based on internet prices and reduction of duty.
4. Justification for reduction in fine and penalty.
5. Interest liability on customs duty.
6. Legitimacy of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in the case of smuggling goods.

1. Reduction in value, fine, penalty, and interest by the Commissioner (Appeals):
The respondent's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) resulted in a significant reduction in the value of imported goods, redemption fine, and personal penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) also waived the interest liability until the goods were released. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs challenged this reduction, arguing that it lacked legal support and reasoning.

2. Competency of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to file a revision application:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the Deputy Commissioner's legal competence to file the revision application. However, it was found baseless as a Review Order had authorized the Deputy Commissioner to file the revision application, thus validating the filing process.

3. Valuation of goods based on internet prices and reduction of duty:
The respondent lacked purchase invoices for the imported goods, leading to the adoption of internet-based values by the Revenue. While the Additional Commissioner reduced the internet value by 30%, the Commissioner (Appeals) questioned the validity of this approach but ultimately accepted it. The Commissioner's reasoning for further reducing the value by 55% was deemed illogical and unreasonable, as internet prices do not include customs duty. The respondent's claim of purchasing goods for a specific amount was not substantiated, and the Commissioner's valuation method was criticized.

4. Justification for reduction in fine and penalty:
The Commissioner (Appeals) drastically reduced the redemption fine and penalty without providing sufficient reasons. The decision was based on vague considerations of specific circumstances, which were not adequately explained in the order. The lenient view taken despite clear evidence of smuggling raised concerns about the legitimacy of the reduction in fine and penalty.

5. Interest liability on customs duty:
The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the interest on customs duty without proper justification, claiming it was not payable until the goods were released. However, the Government found this reasoning flawed, as interest is automatically payable from the date the customs duty was due, as per Section 28AA of the Customs Act.

6. Legitimacy of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in the case of smuggling goods:
Considering the blatant smuggling activities and the lack of legitimate basis for reducing the value, duty liability, fine, and penalty, the Government upheld the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order entirely.

In conclusion, the revision application was allowed, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and upholding the original order imposing fines and penalties related to the smuggling of goods.

← Previous Next →