2000 (1) TMI 485 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Under-valuation of imported machinery
2. Liability for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act
3. Levying of differential duty

Issue 1: Under-valuation of imported machinery
The case involves the import of a Chromagraph DC 300 BER MCS Machine by an Indian company from Germany. The Department alleged that the machine was significantly under-invoiced, valuing it at DM 3 lakhs, reduced to DM 2,80,000 after an advance payment. The show cause notice called for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, penal action under Section 112, and recovery of differential duty. The Commissioner's order-in-original dropped the proposed actions. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, including communications between the parties, and concluded that the transaction value was indeed DM 2,80,000. Consequently, the machine was liable for confiscation, and the importer was penalized and directed to pay the differential duty.

Issue 2: Liability for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act
The Tribunal found that the importer, Indian Express Newspapers, mis-declared the value of the imported machinery to evade duty payment. As a result, the machinery was subject to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. The Tribunal imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,75,000 on the respondent for the mis-declaration. The Tribunal held that the respondent was indeed liable for the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act due to the under-valuation of the machinery.

Issue 3: Levying of differential duty
The Tribunal determined that the imported machinery, valued at DM 2,80,000, was declared at a significantly lower value of DM 1,38,000 to avoid duty payment. Consequently, the machinery was liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. The Tribunal ordered the confiscation but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine. The respondent, Indian Express Newspapers, was directed to pay a redemption fine of Rs. 3,75,000, which was half of the differential duty payable on the actual value. Additionally, the respondent was liable to pay the differential duty amounting to Rs. 7,72,229.74. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the imposition of penalties and differential duty.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of under-valuation, penalty liability, and differential duty levied in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision.