2007 (11) TMI 45 - AT - Customs

Appellant held negotiation with first importer to purchase imported consignment As appellant entered the scene at later point of time and had no knowledge of mis-declaration of value of goods by exporter so cannot be penalized

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposition of Rs.8 lakhs for mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported consignment.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellant for mis-declaration and undervaluation of an imported consignment. The consignment, initially described as Polyester Woven Fabrics valued at Rs.45 lakhs, was found to be PFY worth Rs.2,21,42,585 upon examination. The Commissioner upheld the charges and penalties, including the Rs.8 lakhs penalty on the appellant. The appellant denied knowledge of mis-declaration and collusion with the shipper, emphasizing the lack of evidence against them. The show cause notice highlighted the deliberate mis-declaration of value to evade customs duty. The central issue was whether the appellant had knowledge or involvement in the mis-declaration that rendered the consignment liable for confiscation.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and evaluated the evidence. It was noted that the mis-declaration occurred at the time of importation by the original importer, not the appellant. The appellant entered the scenario later and claimed ignorance of the mis-declaration by the supplier. No statements or evidence implicated the appellant in the mis-declaration. The Commissioner's findings lacked concrete evidence linking the appellant to the mis-declaration. The suspicions raised were insufficient to establish the appellant's involvement without concrete evidence or statements. The Tribunal clarified that observations on other parties' roles were not considered in the appeal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision was based on the lack of evidence proving the appellant's knowledge or intentional involvement in the mis-declaration of the consignment's description and value. The Commissioner's findings regarding the appellant's involvement were deemed unsubstantiated, leading to the appeal's success.