2017 (9) TMI 761 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - woven fabrics and not fully knitted fabric - appellant diverted the imported consignment for other than intended purposes - N/N. 94/2004 dated 10.9.2004 - Held that - The evidence brought out in the impugned order clearly establishes that the import consignments have been mis-declared regarding the contents of the goods. In fact, have been diverted to places other than the ones entered in the license. We find that belated attempt by the main appellant to bring in the address of other companies, as if a supporting manufacturer is not relevant to decide already imported consignments which were diverted. The evidence examined by the impugned order has not been controverted with any authority. Penalty - Held that - The manager of the second appellant had in fact confirmed that they are aware of the diversion of the imported cargo and they were involved in arranging the transport of such diversion. The original authority on careful consideration of the role of the CHA in the above mentioned violations concluded that such action on the part of the second appellant will attract penal consequence - penalty upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of conditions of Notification No. 94/2004-Cus. dated 10.9.2004 for duty-free import of goods, diversion of imported cargo, imposition of penalties on the main appellant and the second appellant (CHA).

Analysis:
The main appellant, an importer, imported woven/knitted fabrics under Notification No. 94/2004-Cus. and faced allegations of mis-declaration and diversion of goods. The Revenue demanded customs duty, ordered confiscation of goods, and imposed penalties. The original authority upheld the charges, demanded duty on past imports, and imposed penalties on both appellants. The main appellant argued against the application of Section 28, registration with the central excise department, and retrospective consideration of license amendments. The second appellant, a Custom House Agent (CHA), claimed innocence regarding the duty-free import conditions and penalties for negligence. Despite multiple hearing opportunities, no appearance was made on behalf of the appellants, leading to the dismissal of their appeals based on appeal records and the assistance of the ld. AR.

The ld. AR supported the original authority's findings, citing evidence like consignment notes, unauthorized addresses, and statements indicating diversion of goods. The ld. AR emphasized the serious violation of conditions and the non-applicability of license amendments to past imports. The ld. AR argued that the appeals lacked merit and should be dismissed. The main appellant did not contest the diversion of imported cargo but disputed the violation of conditions and highlighted license amendments. The evidence in the impugned order revealed mis-declaration and diversion of goods, supported by testimony from various sources. The main appellant failed to provide substantial rebuttal, leading to the affirmation of the original authority's findings.

Regarding penalties on the second appellant, their involvement in the violation was evident from consignment notes and statements. The original authority established the CHA's knowing assistance in the diversion of imported cargo, leading to penal consequences. The manager of the second appellant confirmed their awareness and involvement in arranging the transportation of diverted goods. The original authority's analysis of the CHA's role in the violations was upheld, and no interference was made with the penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed based on the lack of merit, affirming the original authority's findings and penalties imposed on both the main appellant and the second appellant (CHA).