9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1220 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - mis-declaration of value of goods - the enhancement of value done on the basis of the documents received from the U S Customs through Consulate General - imposition of redemption fine and penalties - HELD THAT - There is no merit in the submission of the Appellants that enhancement of value done on the basis of the documents received from the U S Customs through Consulate General, is not warranted. The decision of COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY VERSUS EAST PUNJAB TRADERS 1996 (11) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT referred to by the Appellants to is distinguishable, as in the para 5 of the judgment, it is specifically recorded that the documents were not recovered through the officially prescribed channel and were not collected from the Customs of the concerned countries. By mis-declaring and filing the Bill of Entry on the basis of manipulated invoices, appellants have definitely suppressed the value of the goods imported. Or their act of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty extended period of limitation as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 has been correctly invoked in the present case - For this reason the penalties imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 are justified - it is also evident that appellants have filed/ caused to file the Bill of Entry on the basis of false or manipulated invoice for mis-declaring the value hence in our view the provision of Section 114AA to get attracted in the present case. It is true that for the act of misdeclaration the goods became liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further for their act of misdeclaration making the goods liable for confiscation, Appellants are liable to penalty under Section 112(a). In view of the fact that proviso in Section 114A specifically provides that if the penalty has been imposed under that section, penalty cannot be imposed under Section 112, Commissioner has not imposed any penalty on Appellant 1 on whom penalty under Section 114A has been imposed - no penalties have been imposed on the managing director and executive director of the appellant company. Imposition of redemption fine - HELD THAT - Since the goods were not available for confiscation nor released provisionally after seizure to appellants against bond and bank guarantee, the order for confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine cannot be sustained. Demand of Interest - HELD THAT - Since appellants have short paid the duty at the time of clearance the demand for interest under Section 28AB to is justified - the demand of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld. The impugned order is upheld except for setting aside the order in respect of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine - appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declared values and redetermination of the value of imported goods. 2. Confiscation of imported goods. 3. Demand for differential customs duty. 4. Demand for interest on the differential customs duty. 5. Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Validity of evidence obtained from foreign customs authorities. 7. Reliance on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 8. Applicability of extended period for demand and penalties under Section 28 of the Customs Act. 9. Imposition of redemption fine when goods are not available for confiscation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Declared Values and Redetermination of the Value of Imported Goods: The Commissioner rejected the declared values of the imported goods under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules (CVR), 1988, and redetermined the values under Rule 4 of CVR, 1988 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The redetermined values were significantly higher than the declared values, indicating undervaluation by the appellants. 2. Confiscation of Imported Goods: The imported goods were ordered to be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the misdeclaration of value. However, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and the imposition of redemption fine, as the goods were not available for confiscation nor released provisionally after seizure. 3. Demand for Differential Customs Duty: The Commissioner confirmed the demand for differential customs duty amounting to ?41,99,410/- for imports through Nhava Sheva and ?9,79,807/- for imports through Chennai Port under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the demand for differential duty based on the redetermined values. 4. Demand for Interest on the Differential Customs Duty: Interest on the differential customs duty was confirmed under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the demand for interest, citing the mandatory nature of interest under Section 28AB. 5. Imposition of Penalties: Penalties were imposed on the appellants under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962: - Penalty equal to the aggregate amount of duty under Section 114A. - Penalty of ?4,00,000/- on Shri Gian Chand Arora under Section 112(a). - Penalty of ?4,00,000/- each on M/s I G International and Shri Gian Chand Arora under Section 114AA. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, emphasizing the deliberate misdeclaration of value and the use of manipulated invoices. 6. Validity of Evidence Obtained from Foreign Customs Authorities: The Tribunal relied on documents obtained from the US Customs through the Consulate General of India, which showed higher values declared to US Customs compared to the values declared in India. The Tribunal cited various decisions to support the admissibility of such documents as evidence. 7. Reliance on Statements Recorded Under Section 108 of the Customs Act: The Tribunal upheld the reliance on the statement of Shri Gian Chand Arora recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The statement corroborated the undervaluation and misdeclaration of value. The Tribunal cited several decisions affirming the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108. 8. Applicability of Extended Period for Demand and Penalties Under Section 28 of the Customs Act: The Tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the deliberate suppression of value with intent to evade duty. The penalties under Section 114A were also justified based on the same grounds. 9. Imposition of Redemption Fine When Goods Are Not Available for Confiscation: The Tribunal set aside the order for confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine, as the goods were not available for confiscation nor released provisionally against bond and bank guarantee. The decision was based on the Larger Bench ruling in Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the majority of the Commissioner's orders, including the rejection of declared values, demand for differential duty and interest, and imposition of penalties. However, the order for confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine was set aside due to the unavailability of the goods. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|
