2001 (8) TMI 350 - Commission - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Underinvoicing and evasion of customs duty.
2. Admission and settlement of duty liability.
3. Verification of documents related to freight and insurance.
4. Calculation of duty liability for specific Bills of Entry.
5. Comparison with similar cases and legal precedents.
6. Penalty imposition and immunity from prosecution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Underinvoicing and Evasion of Customs Duty:
The applicant, M/s. Manhar Audiotronics (P) Ltd., was engaged in importing electronic components from Hong Kong and Taiwan. Based on intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) suspected underinvoicing to evade customs duty. Searches were conducted, and documents were seized on 19-5-1998. A show cause notice (SCN) dated 11-6-1999 was issued, demanding Rs. 28,91,400/- in customs duty.

2. Admission and Settlement of Duty Liability:
The applicant filed an application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, admitting a duty liability of Rs. 4,60,078/-. During the investigation, Rs. 10 lakhs had already been deposited. The Commission allowed the application to proceed under Section 127C(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, directing the applicant to pay the admitted liability.

3. Verification of Documents Related to Freight and Insurance:
The Revenue was tasked with verifying the genuineness of documents submitted by the applicant as proof of payment towards freight and insurance. The certificates from M/s. Famous Pacific Shipping (HK) Ltd. and M/s. Savalani Enterprises were verified and accepted as genuine by the Consulate General of India, Hong Kong.

4. Calculation of Duty Liability for Specific Bills of Entry:
The applicant admitted a liability of Rs. 4,60,078/- for 3 Bills of Entry, which was recalculated by the Revenue to Rs. 4,62,689/-. The Commission corrected this to Rs. 4,66,827/- due to an arithmetical error. For the remaining 7 Bills of Entry, the applicant initially did not admit any liability, arguing the lack of contemporaneous evidence. However, the applicant later agreed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for these Bills of Entry, calculated based on the lowest export value in the export declaration.

5. Comparison with Similar Cases and Legal Precedents:
The Commission referred to the CEGAT decision in Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, where the assessable value was determined based on available invoices. The Commission found this precedent applicable, as similar circumstances existed in the applicant's case.

6. Penalty Imposition and Immunity from Prosecution:
The Commission noted the applicant's cooperation but also observed that the applicant confined admissions to amounts where the Revenue had evidence. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed under Section 127H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Immunity from prosecution and fine was granted, contingent on the payment of the duty and penalty within 30 days. Failure to comply would result in the withdrawal of immunity.

Conclusion:
The Commission ordered the applicant to pay a total of Rs. 27,67,904/- for the settlement, with Rs. 10,00,000/- already paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 17,67,907/-. The applicant was directed to pay the balance within 30 days. The Commission emphasized the importance of full and true disclosure and cooperation in the settlement process.

← Previous Next →