2012 (8) TMI 477 - AT - Customs

Penalty imposed u/s 112(a) - violation of the provisions of Section 111(m) for mis-declaration of value and violation of the provisions of Exim Policy u/s 111(d) - import of cars not in the possession of the importers for a period of one year - assessee contesting penalty and confiscation of car - Held that - Since importers nor other parties on whom the penal proceedings were initiated, have filed any appeal against the adjudication order, therefore, it is presumed that they have no grievances against the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalties. It is undisputed that appellant was fully aware that the cars which were being imported were not in the possession of the importers for a period of one year, still he undertook to execute the instructions given by the Dubai supplier and arranged for the CHA. Since, appellant s knowledge and connivance in the entire transaction of importing second-hand cars without fulfilling the terms and conditions of the import stand clearly established. Therefore, penalty imposed on the appellant u/s 112(a) is fully justified - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegation of evasion of duty and mis-declaration of prices
- Violation of import conditions regarding possession of cars for at least one year
- Confiscation of cars and imposition of penalties
- Appellant's plea for setting aside the penalty
- Quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant

Analysis:

The case involved allegations of evasion of duty and mis-declaration of prices in the import of second-hand cars. The Customs seized the cars due to discrepancies in the bills of lading and the possession period before import. Show cause notices were issued to the importers and the appellant for aiding in the illicit import of the cars. The cars were provisionally assessed, confiscated, and penalties were imposed on the importers and the appellant. The appellant challenged the penalties imposed on him before the Commissioner (Appeals), which were rejected, leading to the present appeals.

Regarding the evasion of duty, the appellant argued that the final duty assessed was only marginally higher than the provisional duty due to Customs adopting prices based on available information, negating the mis-declaration allegation. Concerning the possession period requirement, the importers claimed to have possessed the cars for the necessary duration, refuting any violation. The appellant contended that if confiscation was not warranted, penalties should not be imposed. However, the lower authorities upheld the confiscation and penalties, prompting the appellant's appeal.

The Tribunal noted that neither the importers nor the other involved parties appealed against the confiscation and penalties, implying their acceptance. The Tribunal found the appellant's involvement in the scheme established, as he knowingly facilitated the import of cars without meeting the possession requirement, justifying the penalty under Section 112(a). The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's plea for leniency and reduced the penalty amount in consideration of the submissions made by the appellant's advocate.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders, except for modifying the penalty amount imposed on the appellant. The stay applications were also disposed of accordingly, bringing the matter to a close.