9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Import of main springs for wrist watches instead of declared steel strips. 2. Allegation of deliberate violation of law and concealment of goods. 3. Question of valuation based on proforma invoices. 4. Incriminating documents seized during search. 5. Allegation of smuggling main springs by concealing them. 6. Challenge to the Collector's findings and order. The judgment revolves around a Revision Application filed against an order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, concerning the import of main springs for wrist watches instead of the declared steel strips. The Department alleged deliberate violation of law and concealment of goods based on incriminating documents seized during a search of the partners' residential premises. The appellants argued that the main springs were mistakenly shipped by the supplier and were not related to the invoices provided by the Department. They also contested the valuation based on proforma invoices from a different manufacturer. The Department contended that the appellants deliberately violated the law and mis-declared the imported goods. The Tribunal queried the appellants on their knowledge of the shipment contents and the delayed reaction to the supplier's error, highlighting inconsistencies in their responses. The Tribunal analyzed the documents recovered during the search, including a diary and letters, deeming them highly incriminating with no satisfactory explanation provided by the appellants. Regarding valuation, the Department relied on proforma invoices from a specific manufacturer, which the appellants disputed, claiming they were not related to the imported goods. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's findings on valuation, noting markings on the boxes indicating the goods' origin. The appellants' challenge to the Collector's conclusion was dismissed due to lack of substantial evidence supporting their claims. Furthermore, the appellants raised objections regarding a letter from a supplier, which the Collector deemed false, leading to a threat of prosecution for producing a false document. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the letter should be considered valid, as they did not challenge its accuracy during the appeal process. The Tribunal also addressed the Collector's observation of concealing the main springs in a specific case, stating that this did not invalidate the Collector's overall findings of attempted smuggling. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Central Board of Excise & Customs' decision to uphold the Collector's order, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
|
