9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 896 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - Undervaluation and misdeclaration - enhancement of value based on NIDB data - evasion of customs duty - Appellants submits that the investigation into the impugned case is offshoot of investigation conducted against TELE BRANDS (INDIA) PVT LTD, HITESH ISRANI, SHREENATH ENTERPRISES, PRAKASH CHANDRA PANDYA, GNG CO, NANDGOPAL NAIDU VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI 2016 (1) TMI 97 - CESTAT MUMBAI - HELD THAT - The evidence relied upon by the department is identical/similar. Therefore, following the ratio of tribunal judgement in Tele-brands India Pvt. Ltd the impugned order may be set aside. The instant case also relies on unauthenticated Email, retracted statements. We find that in view of the categorical findings by the Tribunal nothing survives in the case. In fact in the case against Tele-brands some confirmation by the originating country was there, which was not relied upon by tribunal as the same was not authenticated and corroborated. Such communication also is not available in this case. We find that as the very reasons for rejection of transaction value are negated, reference to NIDB data is of no help. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Alleged undervaluation and misdeclaration of goods to evade customs duty. 2. Show cause notices issued for enhancing assessable value, confirming differential duty, and imposing penalties. 3. Appeal against the penalty under Section 114AA introduced in 2006. 4. Reliance on evidence from previous investigations and retracted statements. 5. Authenticity of email correspondence and computer printouts as evidence. 6. Sustainment of differential duty demand and penalties. Analysis: 1. The case involved allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration of goods to evade customs duty. The investigation stemmed from information regarding the importation of Gym equipment through certain entities, leading to searches and detentions of goods worth approximately 1.80 Cr. The subsequent show cause notices were issued to various parties, including M/s. Estelle Impex and individuals associated with other entities. 2. Show cause notices were issued to enhance the assessable value, confirm differential duty, and propose penalties on the involved parties. Orders in Original were adjudicated, leading to appeals being filed challenging the penalties imposed. 3. The appeal raised concerns regarding the imposition of penalties under Section 114AA, which was introduced after the filing of the Bill of Entry. Reference was made to a previous case where the penalty under the same section was struck down by the CESTAT, questioning the validity of imposing such penalties retrospectively. 4. The case highlighted the reliance on evidence from previous investigations, particularly retracted statements and email correspondence. The retracted statements of key individuals were contested, emphasizing that statements retracted by the individuals could not be considered as confessional statements. The authenticity and admissibility of the evidence were crucial points of contention. 5. The authenticity of email correspondence and computer printouts as evidence was brought into question. The tribunal scrutinized the evidence and found discrepancies in the handling and origin of the documents, leading to doubts about their reliability and admissibility in establishing the alleged undervaluation. 6. After a detailed examination of the facts and records, the tribunal concluded that the demand for differential duty and penal actions could not be sustained. The lack of evidence to establish undervaluation rendered other confirmations, such as confiscation of goods and penalties, unsustainable. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of tenability and the need to reject the penalties imposed based on insufficient evidence. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the intricate legal arguments, evidentiary considerations, and the tribunal's meticulous evaluation of the case to arrive at a reasoned decision.
|
