2019 (9) TMI 1111 - AT - Customs

Irregular imports - Rejection of declared value - confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - The importer and the CHA representative were unable to produce the BIS Certificate in respect of the said goods. Instead of producing the certificate appellants tried to manipulate the certificate and produced some other certificate, to cover up the imports. All the irregularities in the imports were accepted by Shri Abhishek Jain, Proprietor of M/s United Traders (Appellant). Appellants have neither in the appeal or during the course of argument contested in respect of the irregularities noticed in the imports made. They have specifically stated that they were not personally responsible for irregularities. These irregularities were caused and committed by one Shri Jitender Aggarwal. They were simply the innocent victims of the misdeeds of Shri Jitender Aggarwal and have suffered huge losses on that account. Once the fact that the goods were imported contrary to provisions of Customs Act, 1962, they become liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the person importing such goods is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Custom Act, 1962 - The decisions relied upon by the appellants do not advance their case. In the present case the goods were seized and then provisionally released. After provisional release of the goods they have been re-exported. In such as situation the goods are liable for confiscation. Appellants have in their appeal and submissions contended that they have made certain deposits during the course of investigation of the case through Shri Jitender Aggarwal. They have claimed that department should be directed to refund the amount deposited by them. We are not in position to pass any order on this request by the appellants, as the issue sought to be raised by the appellant is not the issue decided by the impugned order - Secondly it is for the appellants to establish their claim to the money deposited and subsequent refunds if any due before the Custom authorities and seek refund from them. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection and re-determination of the value of imported goods.
2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of goods used for concealing smuggled goods under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Exoneration of certain individuals from penalties.
7. Appellant's claim of innocence and request for refund of deposited amounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection and Re-determination of the Value of Imported Goods:
The Commissioner of Customs held that the value of goods imported by the four firms was liable for rejection and re-determination as per the Customs Act, 1962, and Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. However, as the goods were already re-exported, the values were not re-determined. The misdeclaration of value led to the goods being liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Confiscation of Goods Under Section 111(m) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The imported goods were also held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) due to the violation of the Electronics & Information Technology Goods (requirement for compulsory registration) Order, 2012. The goods were imported without the necessary BIS certification, leading to their confiscation.

3. Confiscation of Goods Used for Concealing Smuggled Goods Under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Goods other than those held liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) were also held liable for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were used for concealing smuggled goods.

4. Imposition of Fine in Lieu of Confiscation Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Since the goods liable for confiscation had been provisionally released for re-export, a fine in lieu of confiscation was imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The fines were appropriated from voluntary deposits made during the investigation or at the time of provisional release, with amounts specified for each firm.

5. Imposition of Penalties Under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962:
Penalties were imposed on the four firms under Section 112(a) for their involvement in the import of goods liable for confiscation. Additionally, penalties were imposed under Section 114AA for the use of false and incorrect material. Specific penalties were also imposed on individuals involved in the misuse of BIS certificates and other irregularities.

6. Exoneration of Certain Individuals from Penalties:
No penalties were imposed on the proprietors of the four importing firms under Sections 112(a) and 114AA, as penalties had already been imposed on their firms. Proceedings against certain other individuals and companies were dropped, with directions for forwarding the order to the Competent Authority for appropriate action.

7. Appellant's Claim of Innocence and Request for Refund of Deposited Amounts:
The appellant, M/s United Traders, claimed innocence, stating that they were misled by Shri Jitender Aggarwal and were unaware of the requirement for BIS certification. They argued that the strict action of imposing fines and penalties was uncalled for. The appellant also sought a refund of amounts deposited during the investigation, which had been denied by the customs authority pending the tribunal's decision. The tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants were liable for the irregularities in the imports and that the request for a refund was not within the scope of the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by M/s United Traders was dismissed, upholding the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties as per the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal confirmed that the goods were imported contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and were liable for confiscation and penalties, despite the appellant's claims of innocence and requests for refunds.

← Previous Next →