2016 (12) TMI 1366 - AT - Customs

Illegal import - baggage rules - mis-declaration of description as well as value of goods - Held that - For sustaining the allegation of misdeclaration of the imported goods as well as undervaluation thereof, the records needs to be corroborated on the basis of independent evidence. Testing of samples with imported goods could have been done to establish the correct nature of the imported goods. The documents recovered from respondent No. 3 have never been corroborated or supported by any statements from the exporters. It is also placed on record in the adjudication proceedings as well as criminal proceedings initiated, that the respondent No. 3 stands exonerate - order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 13/25.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur concerning intercepted passengers with undeclared currency and alleged undervalued imports by a company.

Analysis:

1. The case involved four appeals filed by Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 13/25.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The appeals stemmed from an incident where three passengers were intercepted at the airport with undeclared travellers cheques and currency notes. The investigation revealed potential undervalued imports by a company. The original authority imposed custom duty, interest, and penalties on the company and individuals involved. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, prompting the Revenue's appeal.

2. During the hearing, the Revenue argued for reinstatement of the original authority's view, emphasizing previous decisions by higher appellate authorities and the quashing of criminal proceedings against the individuals involved. However, the consultant for the respondent countered these arguments.

3. The main dispute centered around alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods by the company. The Revenue contended that the goods were misdeclared as Stainless Steel Melting Scrap instead of Brass Scrap, with undervaluation. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped duty demands and penalties citing lack of follow-up action by DRI officers and proper verification procedures undertaken by the company upon receipt of goods. The Commissioner concluded that the charges were not substantiated solely based on recovered documents and statements.

4. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's case heavily relied on documents recovered from the intercepted individuals, lacking independent evidence or corroboration. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of sample testing to confirm the nature of imported goods and the lack of support from exporters' statements. Noting the exoneration of one of the individuals involved, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence and proper verification procedures in cases involving alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods.