2017 (3) TMI 832 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalties u/s 114A or 114AA of the CA, 1962 - difference in valuation - wilful suppression of facts and misstatement or not? - Held that - though the respondent has not declared the fact from the department that they are 100% subsidiary of the supplier of the cranes and the goods i.e. cranes were meant only as transfer of assets, the acceptance of the fact that the goods are liable for confiscation u/s 111(m) of the CA, 1962, he imposed penalty on the respondent u/s 112(a) of the CA. The adjudicating authority has quite correctly held in para 51 and 52 that penalty u/s 114A of the CA, 1962 on the respondent is not levied as he has levied the penalty on the respondent u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - also, Revenue in this appeal have not brought out any factual position that there was wilful suppression of facts and misstatement for imposition of penalties u/s 114A or 114AA of the CA, 1962 - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order-in-original, differential duty leviable on cranes, imposition of penalties under various sections, suppression of facts and misstatement, refund of excess amount and release of bond and bank guarantee.

1. Appeal against Order-in-Original:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-original dated 31.3.2016, concerning the clearance of used crawler cranes. The respondent had sought clearance by filing a bill of entry, but the goods were seized at the port due to a difference in valuation. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for the confirmation of the demand for the alleged differential duty on the cranes. After due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which was challenged before the Tribunal. The CESTAT remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with directions regarding admissible depreciation. Following the remand, the duty liability was redetermined to &8377; 67,05,931/- with interest and penalties imposed under Section 112(a).

2. Imposition of Penalties:
The Revenue contended that there was suppression of facts and wilful misstatement, warranting penalties under Section 114A and 114AA. However, the adjudicating authority refrained from imposing penalties under these sections, stating that there was no conclusive evidence of deliberate misdeclaration of value. The authority imposed penalties under Section 112(a) on the respondent, considering factors like non-disclosure of being a 100% subsidiary of the crane supplier and the intended transfer of assets.

3. Suppression of Facts and Misstatement:
The grounds of appeal did not clearly specify the extent of suppression leading to misdeclaration of value by the respondent. The adjudicating authority noted the lack of wilful suppression and misstatement, hence not levying penalties under Section 114A or 114AA. The appeal lacked factual evidence supporting the claim of deliberate misdeclaration, and the penalties were imposed under Section 112(a) based on specific findings.

4. Refund and Release of Bond:
The respondent requested the refund of the excess amount deposited during the provisional release of goods and the release of the bond and bank guarantee. The Tribunal directed the Revenue department to refund the balance amount after adjusting the dues as per the order and release the bond and bank guarantee executed by the respondent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it. The appeal was disposed of with directions for refunding the excess amount and releasing the bond and bank guarantee.