2017 (6) TMI 1007 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - imported Pregnancy (HCQ) Test Strip and Pregnancy (HCQ) Test Cassettee - benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 - Held that - When no evidence was led by appellant to claim the exemption, that established deliberate misdeclaration to Customs. Customs proved its case against the appellant. Appellant made attempt to be enriched at the cost of Revenue making deliberate misdeclaration. That made the goods liable to confiscation being smuggled goods under section 2(39) read with section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. Questionable conduct and oblique motive of the appellant contributed to its implication to the charge. When fraud surfaces, that unravels all - Revenue s stand is fortified from the Apex Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. 1996 (8) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of concessional rate of duty without fulfilling conditions of the notification.
2. Allegation of fraud on Revenue by making false representations.
3. Implication of deliberate misdeclaration by the appellant.
4. Goods liable to confiscation as smuggled goods.
5. Judicial stance on fraud and its implications on legal proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant imported goods declaring them assessable to a concessional rate of duty under a specific notification without meeting the conditions. Customs examined the goods and documents during clearance, leading to a denial of the exemption benefit claimed by the appellant.

Issue 2: The judgment delves into the concept of fraud, emphasizing that deception and injury to the deceived are essential elements. It is highlighted that fraud involves deliberate deception to gain an unfair advantage, leading to loss or detriment to the deceived party. Various legal precedents are cited to establish the gravity of fraud in legal proceedings.

Issue 3: The tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to support the claim for exemption, indicating deliberate misdeclaration to Customs. This deliberate attempt to obtain enrichment at the expense of Revenue was viewed seriously, contributing to the implication of the goods as liable to confiscation under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 4: The judgment reinforces that when fraud surfaces, it unravels all proceedings. Citing legal precedents, it is emphasized that fraud nullifies transactions and judgments obtained through deceit. The tribunal relied on apex court judgments to support the Revenue's stand and dismissed the appeal based on the questionable conduct and oblique motive of the appellant.

Issue 5: The final decision of the tribunal was influenced by the judicial stance on fraud, as highlighted in various apex court judgments. It is reiterated that no court will allow a person to retain an advantage obtained through fraudulent means. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on the established implications of fraud in the case.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the legal principles applied, and the ultimate decision reached by the tribunal.