2025 (1) TMI 234 - HC - Customs

Error in not considering that, in the entire show cause notice John Miranda and Rakesh Magoo or the importer have never given any statement alleging that the petitioner was aware of the alleged mis-declaration of value - Department proceeded on the basis of assumption, presumption and surmise in the matter without any evidence or not - failure to consider that the petitioner after obtaining the authorization from the importer viz. M/s. Surya Trading Co., Delhi in course of ordinary business filed the bill of entry on the basis of the invoice, packing list, bill of lading, import-export code number etc. provided by the importer - HELD THAT - As could be seen from the order of adjudication, the allegations against the appellant are very specific and has been noted in paragraph of the Order-in-Original, which is the basis on which show cause notice was issued. Thereafter, liberty was granted to the appellant to file their reply and they were personally heard in the matter and the Order-in-Original was passed. The adjudicating authority in paragraphs in 33.2 and 33.3 has clearly brought out the modus adopted by the appellant and how the appellant was a party to the entire under valuation exercise. This factual finding has been affirmed by the Learned Tribunal. There are no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law, arising for consideration in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the lack of evidence against the appellant regarding their awareness of the alleged mis-declaration of value.
Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering that the appellant, as a Custom House Agent (CHA), acted based on documentation provided by the importer and was not involved in the undervaluation of goods.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Lack of Evidence Against the Appellant

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant argued that there was no evidence in the show cause notice indicating their awareness of the mis-declaration. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of assumption and presumption without evidence.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the adjudicating authority had specific allegations against the appellant, as detailed in the Order-in-Original. The Tribunal affirmed these findings.
Key Evidence and Findings: The adjudicating authority's findings in paragraphs 33.2 and 33.3 of the Order-in-Original detailed the appellant's involvement in the undervaluation exercise.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the factual findings established the appellant's role in the undervaluation, negating the appellant's argument of lack of evidence.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's reliance on a precedent case where a CHA acted bona fide was distinguished by the court, noting the different factual findings in the present case.
Conclusions: The court concluded that there were no substantial questions of law arising from this issue.

Issue 2: Appellant's Role as a Custom House Agent

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant claimed that as a CHA, they merely facilitated the import process based on documentation provided by the importer and were not involved in any undervaluation.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered the appellant's role and the evidence presented by the adjudicating authority, which showed the appellant's participation in the undervaluation scheme.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court highlighted the adjudicating authority's detailed findings on the modus operandi adopted by the appellant.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal standards to the facts, determining that the appellant's actions went beyond mere facilitation and involved active participation in undervaluation.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument that they were not related to the goods and thus could not be involved in undervaluation was rejected based on the factual findings.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the appellant's role as a CHA did not exempt them from liability given the evidence of their involvement in undervaluation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The adjudicating authority in paragraphs 33.2 and 33.3 has clearly brought out the modus adopted by the appellant and how the appellant was a party to the entire under valuation exercise."
Core Principles Established: The court established that factual findings by the adjudicating authority, when affirmed by the Tribunal, are sufficient to dismiss claims of lack of evidence and bona fide action by a CHA.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that no substantial questions of law arose from the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the associated stay application.

← Previous Next →