9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 912 - AT - CustomsTime Limitation for issuance of SCN u/s 28(1) and Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - tampering the chassis Number of the imported car and mis-declaring the year of manufacture - HELD THAT - Section 124 does not provide any limitation for issuance of SCN for the purpose of confiscation or imposition of penalty. In view of the mis-declaration and the fact that there is no time limit envisaged in the above Sections 111(m) or 124 for issuance of the notice, the plea of the appellant that the notice is time barred cannot be accepted. The reliance placed on by the counsel in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS MMK JEWELLERS ANOTHER 2008 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT is not applicable as it was a notice issued under Section 28 and penalty imposed under Section 114(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Based on the report received from the Mumbai Police, it is evident and beyond doubt that the car imported was mis-declared by tampering the chassis number and the value was also determined based on the mis-declared year of manufacture. The authorities below were right in redetermining the value at Rs.10,86,735/- in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Appeal is partly allowed.
Issues:
1. Time limitation for issuance of show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Redetermination of value and imposition of redemption fine and penalty based on mis-declaration and tampering of imported car. 3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant argued that the entire show-cause notice is barred by limitation as the differential duty demanded was dropped by the original authority under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Revenue contended that there is no time limit under Section 124 for issuing show-cause notice for confiscation of goods, especially in cases of tampering and mis-declaration. The Tribunal noted that the plea of the appellant regarding time limitation cannot be accepted, as Section 124 does not provide any limitation for the issuance of a show-cause notice for confiscation or imposition of penalty. The Tribunal distinguished the case cited by the appellant, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. M.M.K. Jewellers, as it involved different sections of the Customs Act. Issue 2: The appellant objected to the redetermination of value, arguing that it was belated and not done in accordance with Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal considered the examination report by the Mumbai Police, which revealed tampering of the chassis number and mis-declaration of the year of manufacture of the imported car. Relying on Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, the Tribunal upheld the redetermination of value at Rs.10,86,735. However, considering settled decisions, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs.1,00,000 and the penalty to Rs.50,000. Issue 3: The goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to discrepancies in the value and particulars of the imported car. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the authorities to confiscate the goods based on tampering and mis-declaration. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, while reducing the amounts based on various considerations. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order to reduce the redemption fine and penalty. The decision was based on the evidence of tampering and mis-declaration, upholding the redetermination of value while considering relevant legal provisions and precedents.
|
