2018 (10) TMI 1807 - AT - Customs

Seizure of goods - differences in the contents of the invoices and Bill of Entry and the actual goods received - goods imported in the past were also misdeclared as is evident from the invoices - contention of the appellant was that he has not filled the Bill of Entry therefore the misdeclaration of value, quantity and nature of the goods cannot be alleged. HELD THAT - Learned Commissioner (A) has already given substantial relief to the appellants in respect of the duty and redemption fine imposed on past clearances. Going by the fact that in respect of previous consignments, as per invoices found in the file recovered from the appellant s premise, were found to be different from that filed before customs. Therefore, circumstantially, there were reasons to believe that the importer was habitually attempting to misdeclare the description, quantity and value of goods. It was not the case of the appellant that the invoices recovered from his possession on 11-1-2005 truthfully contained details of the goods imported vide said consignments. The appellant did not prove that he had the right intentions. The appellant rather than proving his bona fides was harping on mistakes in the investigation and procedures of clearance. The appellant cannot escape due to certain faults in the procedures and mistakes in the investigation. The Revenue need not prove the case with arithmetical precision - a reasonable case has been made out to show the intentions of the appellant in misdeclaring the nature and value with an intention to evade payment of duty. Impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of goods imported
- Redetermination of declared value of consignments
- Imposition of fines and penalties
- Allegations of misdeclaration and evasion of duty
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 48/2008

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of goods imported by the appellant, along with the redetermination of declared values of consignments, and the imposition of fines and penalties based on allegations of misdeclaration and evasion of duty. The appellant, M/s. Welcome Exports, had imported a consignment containing telephones, ball bearings, and batteries for digital cameras. The goods were seized due to discrepancies between the invoices, Bill of Entry, and the actual goods received. Additionally, past importations were also found to be misdeclared. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued proposing various actions, which were adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner resulting in confiscation, fines, and penalties.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty demand on goods cleared in previous consignments, citing legal precedents. The penalty on the appellant was reduced, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that no misdeclaration could be alleged as the Bill of Entry was not fully completed, and there were procedural irregularities during the investigation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found discrepancies in the records and upheld the confiscation and penalties, considering the circumstantial evidence of habitual misdeclaration by the importer.

3. The Tribunal found that the appellant's contentions lacked merit. Despite procedural flaws, there was sufficient evidence to suggest the appellant's intent to misdeclare goods to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, noting that substantial relief had already been provided in previous consignments. The appellant's failure to prove good intentions and reliance on procedural errors did not absolve them of the allegations. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the earlier order and penalties imposed.

4. The judgment, delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, on 22-10-2018, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation, redetermination of values, and imposition of penalties on the appellant for alleged misdeclaration and evasion of duty. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' orders, emphasizing the circumstantial evidence of habitual misdeclaration by the importer and rejecting the appellant's arguments based on procedural irregularities and lack of proof of good intentions.