1988 (5) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of additional evidence.
2. Correctness of declared value of imported goods.
3. Alleged evasion of customs duty.
4. Validity of the show cause notice for short-levy.
5. Liability to confiscation under Section 111 (m) and 111 (d) of the Customs Act.
6. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Additional Evidence:
The department filed a miscellaneous application to bring certain documents on record. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided that it was unnecessary to pronounce a separate order on the miscellaneous application as the appeals could be decided without considering the additional evidence sought by the respondent-Collector. Consequently, no orders were passed on the miscellaneous application.

2. Correctness of Declared Value of Imported Goods:
The appellant company filed a bill of entry declaring the C.I.F. and assessable values of the imported goods as Rs. 17,929.00 and Rs. 18,144.00, respectively. The Custom House assessed the goods to duty based on these declared values. However, a subsequent investigation revealed that the actual cost of the goods was significantly higher. The appellant's argument that the vacuvators were purchased second-hand and thus their value should not be equated with the new goods' ex-factory price was not accepted. The Tribunal concluded that the value of the goods should be taken as on the date of import, not the date of sale.

3. Alleged Evasion of Customs Duty:
The investigation, prompted by a Parliamentary Committee report, revealed that the actual cost of the vacuvators, including spares and accessories, was U.S. $ 3,89,282.96, equivalent to Rs. 35,07,433.69. The appellant company was found to have evaded duty amounting to Rs. 19,82,667.55 by misrepresenting the value of the goods. The Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant had engaged in a scheme to avoid paying the full customs duty.

4. Validity of the Show Cause Notice for Short-Levy:
The appellant argued that the show cause notice for short-levy was barred by limitation and that there was no charge of suppression or misrepresentation in the notice. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the appellant had not disclosed the true value of the goods and had engaged in a scheme to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of the short-levy.

5. Liability to Confiscation under Section 111 (m) and 111 (d) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal found that the appellant had misdeclared the value of the goods, making them liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m). However, the Tribunal did not uphold the liability to confiscation under Section 111 (d), as the goods were covered by a valid CCP, and no foreign exchange was involved in the transaction.

6. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act:
The Collector of Customs had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant company. The Tribunal, while upholding the charge of misdeclaration, reduced the penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs, partly allowing the appeal.

Orders Pronounced:
1. The demand for confirmation of duty as sustained by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, was upheld. The appeal regarding the short-levy (Appeal No. 1856/81-A) was dismissed.
2. The penalty imposed was reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. The second appeal (C/A. No. 1309/83-A) was partly allowed.

← Previous Next →