1999 (5) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of consignment of cellular phones under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for under-declaring the value of goods in customs documents.
2. Penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on the importing company, its Directors, and the Clearing Agent.

Confiscation of Consignment:
The judgment upheld the confiscation of a consignment of cellular phones due to under-declaration of the goods' value in customs documents. The appellants had purchased the phones at a higher price but presented false invoices to Customs Authorities, leading to a lower assessment value. The false invoices were attested by a bank to deceive Customs. The court found the under-invoicing established and justified the confiscation of goods.

Penalties Imposed:
Regarding the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, the court analyzed the roles of the importing company, its Directors, and the Clearing Agent. The court noted a deliberate and carefully planned fraud involving the parties. The Managing Director and Ms. Anita Batla played active roles in preparing and filing false documents to evade customs duty. Mrs. Nirmala Rishi facilitated clearance by obtaining false attestations. The penalties were deemed justified based on the gravity of the offense, the value of goods, and potential duty evasion. The penalties were upheld for the importing company, Dr. Rishi, Ms. Anita Batla, and Mrs. Nirmala Rishi.

Role of Clearing Agent:
The Clearing Agent's penalty was contested, arguing he acted as a facilitator without knowledge of the fraud. The agent received documents from Ms. Batla, who admitted providing the papers. The court found no evidence implicating the agent in preparing false invoices or using them for fraud. The agent lacked knowledge of the actual value and did not present false invoices after attestation. Consequently, the court set aside the penalty on the Clearing Agent, recognizing the lack of proof of his involvement in the offense.

In conclusion, the judgment confirmed the confiscation of goods due to under-declaration and upheld penalties on the importing company and its Directors while setting aside the penalty on the Clearing Agent based on lack of evidence of his complicity in the fraud.