2018 (11) TMI 100 - AT - Customs

Time Limitation - misdeclaration of value of goods - Held that - The SCN dated 04.08.2008 was issued for demanding a differential customs duty from the respondent for the period 11.08.2003 to 22.01.2008. The said show cause notice was issued when the audit query was raised by A.G s Office on 16.03.2005. The adjudicating authority has rightly come to the conclusion that Given the fact that the Bills of Entry filed by them after submission of clarification were assessed by the Department from time to time without raising any query or objection, their bonafides cannot be suspected. In these circumstances, the Respondents cannot be blamed of suppressing any facts or wilful misstatement or collusion. The Respondents cannot be penalized for the apparent inaction of the department. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding Order-in-Original dropping demands raised on the respondent while upholding demands within the period of limitation with a dispute of misdeclaration of value of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2010 (H-II)(D)Cus, dated 17.03.2010, where the first appellate authority upheld the Order-in-Original dropping demands raised on the respondent while upholding demands within the period of limitation with a dispute of misdeclaration of value of goods. Despite notice, no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent, leading to the appeal being taken for disposal. The Revenue contended that the first appellate authority erred in upholding the Order-in-Original. The show cause notice dated 04.08.2008 was issued for demanding a differential customs duty from the respondent for the period 11.08.2003 to 22.01.2008, following an audit query raised by A.G's Office on 16.03.2005. The adjudicating authority noted the respondent's detailed response to the query regarding non-inclusion of valuation charges in the bill of entry. The demands raised beyond six months from the show cause notice were held to be time-barred, while those within six months were upheld. The first appellate authority upheld the adjudicating authority's decision based on the respondent's bonafide belief and lack of intent to evade duty.

The first appellate authority's findings were concurred with by the Tribunal, considering the facts of the case. It was observed that the respondent's actions did not exhibit fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade duty. The respondent clarified the valuation charges issue in response to an audit query and imported goods without including these charges in the Bills of Entry based on the belief that the clarification was accepted by the department. The department assessed subsequent Bills of Entry without raising queries or objections, indicating the respondent's bonafide intentions. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the respondent could not be penalized for the department's inaction. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed correct, legal, and without any infirmity, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of bonafide belief, lack of intent to evade duty, and the department's actions in determining liability for customs duty. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of clarifications provided by taxpayers and the department's response in assessing compliance with customs regulations.