2017 (11) TMI 1444 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of description of imported goods - redemption fine - quantum of penalty - Held that - When the goods came from China and such goods were opal glassware , that remained uncontroverted. Similarly, the statement recorded from the above two persons also proved that they were aware of their ill will as well as pre-meditated design of the syndicate of above said persons to cause loss to Revenue - there shall be no redemption fine since imports were not under bond and no penalty can be simultaneously imposed on the proprietor Shri Rajesh Jain and Raj Agencies who are one and the same - demand of duty and interest upheld - appeal allowed in part.

Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods.
3. Involvement of syndicate of smugglers and related parties.
4. Evidence gathered through investigation and statements of involved parties.
5. Relief sought by the Revenue against the appellants.
6. Adjudication of penalties and fines based on the investigation results.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that even if there was mis-declaration of goods and valuation issues, redemption fine should not be imposed as the goods were not available for such imposition. Additionally, it was contended that the penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed twice on the same entity. The appellant also challenged the quantum of penalty imposed, stating that it should be limited to the amount of duty or a maximum of ?5,000. The appellant emphasized that the imported goods were not restricted, hence the penalty should not exceed the duty amount of ?2,53,211.

2. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that upon discovering mis-declaration of goods, proper adjudication was done as the imported goods were different from what was declared. It was alleged that a syndicate of smugglers, including the appellant and another individual, was involved in undervaluation and communication related to the imports. The investigation revealed a modus operandi of undervaluation and mis-declaration, supported by statements from involved parties.

3. The Revenue further submitted that evidence, including a letter and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, confirmed the involvement of the syndicate in undervaluation and mis-declaration. The creation of conduits using forged IEC codes and the practice of mis-declaration and undervaluation were highlighted. The Revenue emphasized that the appellants should not be granted leniency considering the prejudice caused to Revenue.

4. The Tribunal noted that the investigation results presented by the Revenue were uncontroverted by the appellants. It was observed that the appellants did not appear for the hearing, except for one appellant who was represented. The Tribunal confirmed that the imported goods were 'opal glassware' from China, as stated by involved parties. The adjudication order was based on substantial evidence gathered during the investigation.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, except for granting relief to the appellant regarding the redemption fine and the simultaneous imposition of penalties on the proprietor and the entity. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the established evidence and lack of merit in the appeals.

6. The judgment concluded that the duty and interest aspects were not affected by the order, and the penalties and fines were adjudicated based on the evidence and submissions presented during the proceedings.

← Previous Next →