9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of actual user conditions regarding consumables and drum components, undervaluation in import documents, fraud, deliberate misdeclaration, intentional misrepresentation of facts, imposition of penalty, violation of principles of natural justice. Analysis: 1. The appellant, claiming to be a manufacturer of photo copying machines, imported toners, developers, and photo conductor drums under OGL as an actual user. However, subsequent investigation revealed violations of actual user conditions and specific licensing requirements for certain components. The appellant was accused of gross undervaluation and using fabricated invoices. The Collector issued a notice for demanding differential duty and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs, which was confirmed in the impugned order. The appellant failed to respond adequately, leading to the present appeal. 2. The case involves 11 consignments covering toners, developers, and photo copier drums imported without the necessary licenses and in violation of actual user conditions. The appellant's claim of being an actual user was disproved, and the undervaluation of goods was evident, leading to the dispute. 3. The appellant argued that the show cause notice was time-barred and could only be reopened under Section 129D of the Customs Act, not Section 28. However, the Supreme Court precedent clarified that Section 28 could be invoked for cases cleared under Section 47, as in this instance, allowing the notice to proceed. 4. The appellant's contention regarding the actual user status, fraud, misdeclaration, and misrepresentation of facts was thoroughly examined. Evidence, including seized documents and statements, proved that the appellant was not an actual user and had sold the imported articles, violating OGL conditions. The appellant's lack of a specific license for restricted items further substantiated the violations. 5. The appellant admitted to gross undervaluation and fabrication of invoices, supported by seized materials and international pricing data. The Collector's reliance on higher market prices indicated deliberate misdeclaration and misrepresentation of facts by the appellant. 6. Given the deliberate misrepresentation and suppression of facts, the invocation of a larger period of limitation was deemed justified, considering the ITC angle and under-valuation issues. 7. The appellant alleged a violation of natural justice due to inadequate access to relevant documents for responding to the show cause notice. However, the provided documents were deemed sufficient for preparing a response, and the appellant's failure to reply was considered deliberate, leading to the rejection of the natural justice violation claim. 8. Considering the established violations and evidence presented, the imposition of the penalty was upheld, with no grounds found against it. 9. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty and addressing all issues raised in the case comprehensively.
|
