2019 (11) TMI 967 - AT - Customs

Advance License Scheme - forged documents submitted to the licensing authority against ex-bond bills of entry - HELD THAT - The marking citizen fashion that was not incorporated in any of the documents of M/s Kirmi Exports does not indicate that the goods were not those of M/s Kirmi Exports and more particularly in the light of the report of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence of non-conformity of seized goods with the three bills of entries referred to in the show cause notice. The alleged failure of the appellant to produce the customs attested copies of the packing list is not a significant pointer as the goods claimed to have been imported in 2006 were subject to verification after a gap of eight years. The discrepancies pointed out in verification report do not suffice to conclude that the goods are in conformity with the descriptions in the three bills of entry cited in the show cause notice. The conclusion of manipulation, or deliberate attempt to conceal the origin of the seized goods, is not established by the facts on record - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Penalty imposed under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962
- Duty liability, interest, and redemption fine on 'denim fabrics'
- Alleged transfer and clearance of goods without payment of duty
- Remand of the matter for ascertainment of conformity with appellant's claim
- Discrepancies in the seized goods and bills of entry
- Evaluation of discrepancies and manipulation allegations
- Conformity of imported goods with descriptions in bills of entry
- Conclusion on manipulation and concealment of goods' origin

Penalty Imposed under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant challenged an order imposing a penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was set at ?34,24,812 along with duty liability, interest, and a redemption fine on 'denim fabrics.' The appeal involved allegations of transferring and clearing goods without paying duty against advance licenses issued to other entities.

Remand and Ascertainment of Conformity:
The Tribunal had remanded the matter multiple times for verifying the appellant's claim regarding the goods. The appellant contended that the seized goods were part of a consignment imported by another entity, and the Tribunal directed further ascertainment to confirm this claim.

Discrepancies and Manipulation Allegations:
The adjudicating authority found discrepancies between the seized goods and the bills of entry. However, the Tribunal noted that certain discrepancies did not conclusively prove manipulation or deliberate concealment of goods' origin. The discrepancies were evaluated, including differences in invoices, item enumeration, and markings, to assess their impact on the case.

Conformity with Descriptions in Bills of Entry:
The report of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence highlighted non-conformity of the seized goods with the descriptions in the bills of entry mentioned in the show cause notice. The Tribunal analyzed discrepancies in detail, such as differences in invoices and item enumeration, to determine the goods' conformity with the mentioned bills of entry.

Conclusion on Manipulation and Concealment:
After a thorough evaluation of the discrepancies and allegations, the Tribunal concluded that there was no established manipulation or deliberate attempt to conceal the origin of the seized goods. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on the grounds that the manipulation allegations were not supported by the facts on record.