2017 (8) TMI 348 - SC - Customs

Confiscation - penalty - misdeclaration of imported goods - It was further alleged in the SCN that the importers mentioned in the Bill of Entry were mere name-lenders and not the real persons who had made the imports - Held that - there is lack of conclusive proof with regard to actual identification of ball bearings - the Revenue had failed to prove the presence of ball bearings in the two consignments covered by the aforesaid two Bill of Entries. The entire findings of the learned Tribunal including the liability imposed on the aforesaid two persons, which have not been challenged by them before this Court, is on a pure appreciation of the evidence and materials on record. The learned Tribunal being the last forum for determination of questions of fact and no perversity in the appreciation of the materials being discernible from the order of the learned Tribunal, we do not see how these appeals can be scrutinized any further. Neither do we find any substantial question of law in the appeals which would require to be authoritatively answered by this Court. We, therefore, do not find the order of the learned Tribunal to be, in anyway, open to correction. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty imposition on parties involved in mis-declaration of imported goods.
2. Choice of filing a special leave application instead of an appeal before the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Revenue.
3. Lack of conclusive proof regarding the actual identification of goods imported under Bill of Entry Nos. F-4120 and 3058.
4. Liability determination for goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 4316 in the name of a specific entity.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs issued a show cause notice alleging mis-declaration of imported goods by various importers. The adjudicating authority found the notice unsustainable for some entries but held individuals liable for penalties in connection with others. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed, with adjustments to the amounts. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court, which noted the lack of substantial questions of law and upheld the Tribunal's order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

2. The Supreme Court questioned the Revenue's decision to file a special leave application instead of a regular appeal before the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court highlighted that the Revenue's choice implied the matter did not involve duty rates or goods classification issues. The Court expected substantial legal questions to be raised, which the Revenue failed to do, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

3. Regarding Bill of Entry Nos. F-4120 and 3058, the Tribunal found a lack of conclusive proof regarding the actual identification of the imported goods. The Revenue claimed the goods were declared as lead scrap but were actually ball bearings attracting a higher duty rate. The Tribunal's order highlighted the Revenue's failure to prove the presence of ball bearings in the consignments covered by the entries, leading to the penalties imposed on the involved parties.

4. Concerning goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 4316, the Tribunal held specific individuals liable for penalties based on the evidence and materials on record. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the findings were based on a proper evaluation of evidence and no legal questions necessitated further scrutiny. The liability determination for the goods imported under this entry remained unchanged after the Supreme Court's review.