2017 (10) TMI 718 - HC - Customs

Pre-deposit - demand of 50% of pre-deposit - Misdeclaration of imported goods - under-declaration - the case of the respondent-revenue is that the goods imported were under declared and custom duty was paid on declared value. The amount corresponding to the declared value was being paid to the supplier through normal banking channels. It is alleged that the additional amount being the difference between the actual transaction value and the declared value was being sent through Hawala transaction or through telegraphic transfers from the places like Singapore etc. Held that - Only because certain contentions were not raised by the appellants, an order of remand cannot not be made - the impugned order dated 6th June 2014 is just and fair. No modification is warranted. No substantial question of law arises in these appeals. Though we had shown inclination to extend the time granted to deposit the amount, under the said order, the learned senior counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants are not in a position to comply with the said order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Stay order, modification order, and consequential order - Allegations of under-declaration of goods and duty evasion - Disputed emails and transactions - Non-compliance with procedural requirements - Prima facie case for waiver of duty - Cross-examination of witnesses - Financial hardship claims - Discretionary nature of impugned orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Stay Order and Waiver of Duty:
The appeal arose from orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging a stay order, modification order, and a consequential order. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the duty demanded within eight weeks for waiver of the remaining amount. The partners were directed to deposit 20% of the penalty amount. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for waiver of duty based on evidence of under-declared imports and Hawala transactions.

2. Non-Compliance and Disputed Transactions:
The Tribunal considered the appellant's delay in disputing the correctness of the panchnama and the recovery of emails indicating under-declared prices. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the appellant's explanations regarding recovered emails and transactions, leading to the direction for partial deposit of duty and penalties. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of precise transaction values and the use of unofficial channels for payments.

3. Cross-Examination and Procedural Compliance:
The appellants raised concerns about non-compliance with procedural requirements, including the cross-examination of witnesses and the submission of evidence. The Tribunal, however, found the explanations provided unsatisfactory and emphasized the significance of recovered data from hard disks and computers in determining transaction values.

4. Financial Hardship and Discretionary Orders:
Financial hardship claims were made but lacked supporting documentation. The Tribunal emphasized the discretionary nature of the impugned orders, considering the material on record and the conduct of the appellants. The Tribunal held that the law laid down by the Apex Court did not affect the prima facie findings based on the evidence presented.

5. Final Decision and Observations:
The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the impugned orders as just and fair. No modification was deemed necessary, and the Court clarified that its observations were limited to the appeal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the impugned orders were discretionary in nature and that the failure to raise certain contentions did not warrant a remand.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment upheld the Tribunal's findings regarding under-declared imports, disputed transactions, and procedural compliance, leading to the dismissal of the appeals challenging the impugned orders. The Court's decision highlighted the discretionary nature of the orders and the importance of evidence in determining prima facie cases for waiver of duty.