2011 (1) TMI 978 - AT - Customs

Penalty - anti-dumping duty - mis-declaration - SCN issued for confiscation of the goods on the ground that M/s.Parnami Sales Corporation for practical purposes were not actual importer of the consignment under the cover of bill of entry in question - Held that - There is no finding that IEC code was obtained by fraud or by mis-representation by Shri Mohan Pandey. The adjudicating authority accepted that the submission of the importer that they are having an establishment at the address given at the time of obtaining IEC code. There is no finding regarding mis-declaration of the consignment in question or earlier consignments. The importer fairly admitted during argument that goods are liable for anti-dumping duty and in respect of earlier consignments also appropriate anti-dumping duty as well as customs duty was paid. There is no evidence on record to show that Shri Sanjay Daga gave financial help to Shri Mohan Pandey. However, consideration amount is paid to the exporter by the importing firm. There is no evidence that Shri Sanjay Daga impersonated Shri Mohan Pandey before the customs authorities. Therefore the adjudication order passed on basis that M/s.Parnami Sales Corporation are not actual importer are not sustainable. It is also not established on record that Shri Mohan Pandey obtained IEC code by fraud or by giving any false declaration. There is no proceeding initiated by the D.G.F.T. for cancellation of IEC code. In favour of assesee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act.
2. Allegations of mis-declaration and violation of trade regulations.
3. Use of Import-Export Code (IEC) by a different entity.
4. Imposition of penalties on involved parties.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act due to alleged violations. A consignment of 'Pentaerythritol 95% Min.' was intercepted, leading to investigations regarding anti-dumping duty liability. The dispute arose as the actual importer was questioned, with discrepancies in the import process identified.

2. The case involves allegations of mis-declaration and violations of trade regulations, specifically Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, along with related rules. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties based on these alleged violations, leading to a legal challenge.

3. A key issue was the use of the Import-Export Code (IEC) by a different entity than the one listed as the importer. The judgment highlighted that the actual import was conducted by an individual using the IEC of a different entity, raising questions about the legitimacy of the import process.

4. Penalties were imposed on the parties involved, including the proprietor of the importing firm and another individual. The legal representatives of the appellants argued against the penalties, citing lack of mis-declaration and asserting that the import process was legitimate. The judgment ultimately set aside the impugned order, indicating the lack of substantial evidence to sustain the penalties imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal complexities surrounding the confiscation of goods, allegations of mis-declaration, unauthorized use of Import-Export Code, and the imposition of penalties, ultimately resulting in the decision to set aside the impugned order.