2015 (9) TMI 345 - SC - Customs

Mis-declaration of country of origin Imposition of duties, fines and penalty Commissioner vide order imposed duties, redemption fine and penalty Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner after re-appreciating entire evidence Whether tribunal is right in setting aside order imposing duties, fines and penalty Held that - no material was produced by Department to indicate payment by assesse importer on basis of such alleged invoice showing higher amounts Declaration of country of origin were to be made by supplier/exporter, if goods bore Australia marking, Appraising Officers of Department should have objected at time of import Since no objection was raised at time of import, assessments cannot be reopened for valuation under guise of mis-declaration of country of origin No cogent material was collected to substantiate allegations It is matter of year 1997 and it seems that exercise of remitting matter back may be futile Therefore, appeal dismissed as no question of law involved Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of customs duty demand for undervaluation of imported goods.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine.
3. Evaluation of evidence and credibility in customs duty cases.

Confirmation of Customs Duty Demand for Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
The Commissioner confirmed the demand of customs duty amounting to Rs. 96,71,688 for undervaluation of goods imported from M/s. Pearl Industrial Company. The Tribunal set aside the demand citing lack of corroborative evidence and questioning the credibility of Mr. K.M. Puri's statement. The Tribunal highlighted conflicts in Mr. Puri's status and raised concerns about the authenticity of the trade declarations provided. It was noted that no opportunity for cross-examination was granted to the assessee, making Mr. Puri's statement unreliable. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of cross-examining Mr. Puri and the lack of authenticated copies of invoices showing higher amounts.

Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The Commissioner confirmed the demand of redemption fine amounting to Rs. 50,00,000 for the confiscation of AT&T cables due to mis-declaration of the country of origin. The Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that the declaration of the country of origin should have been made by the supplier/exporter. It was noted that if the goods bore Australia marking, the Department should have objected at the time of import, which was not done. The Tribunal emphasized that assessments cannot be reopened for valuation based on mis-declaration of the country of origin after import without proper objections raised during import.

Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility in Customs Duty Cases:
The Tribunal re-evaluated the evidence presented by the Department and found it lacking credibility. It criticized the investigation for being shoddy and slipshod, highlighting serious allegations without substantial evidence to support them. The Tribunal noted that no cogent material was collected to substantiate the allegations, resulting in a dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of any legal questions. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the Tribunal refrained from remitting the case back for further investigation, considering the matter dated back to 1997 and the respondent had already paid certain amounts to the Department, with no intention of claiming a refund.