2020 (9) TMI 853 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty - Valuation of imported goods - Laminated Sheets and Plywoods - rejection of declared value - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - HELD THAT - The order of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine is not under challenge. We also find that importer M/s Shri Saibaba Impex is not in appeal before us. As per the scheme of Section 111 and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 flow as natural consequence of goods being liable for confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. Apparently penalties under Section 112 are imposable both on the person who has imported the goods held liable for confiscation and on all those who had aided and abetted in the act of illegal importation. From the order of the Commissioner it is quite evident that adequate opportunity was extended to the appellants to file the reply to the show cause notice adn also appear for personal hearing. It is for the appellants to avail the opportunity that has been granted. It is not the case where no opportunity was granted for making representation against the show cause notice however appellant chose not to avail the same and appear before the adjudicating authority. In our view when sufficient opportunity has been granted by the adjudicating authority before making the order to noticees in the case, and noticee do not make use of those opportunity then the order cannot be said to be bad for the reason that it hit by vice of Natural Justice. There are no merits in any of the submissions made by and on behalf of the appellants. More so over there is no challenge by the importer to the confiscation of goods before us. As all the facts and evidences have been admitted by the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 there are no merits in these appeals. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection and redetermination of CIF value of imported goods.
2. Confiscation of imported goods under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Examination of the role and involvement of various individuals in the illegal importation.
5. Evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Adherence to principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection and Redetermination of CIF Value:
The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) rejected the declared CIF value of Laminated Sheets and Plywoods totaling ?36,31,222/- under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The value was redetermined at ?71,55,397/- under Rule 9 of the said Rules.

2. Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The imported goods were ordered to be confiscated under Sections 111(d), 111(l), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Sections 3, 7, and 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Rules 12 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, Para 2.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09, and Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. An option to redeem the goods on payment of ?15,00,000/- as redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, was provided, along with the payment of appropriate duty, interest, and other charges upon redemption.

3. Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, on various individuals involved in the illegal importation. The penalties ranged from ?50,000/- to ?5,00,000/- depending on the individual's role and involvement in the illegal activities. No penalties were imposed under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Role and Involvement of Individuals:
Detailed investigations revealed that certain individuals masterminded the illegal imports using bogus IEC holders. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, disclosed the complete modus operandi adopted for making these imports. The individuals admitted their roles and provided details of the illegal activities, including the use of bogus IECs, misdeclaration of weight and value, and the facilitation of customs clearance.

5. Evidentiary Value of Statements:
The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, were considered substantive evidence. The Supreme Court in various judgments, such as K I Pavunny and Naresh J. Sukhawani, held that such statements could form the sole basis for conviction if they were voluntary and not influenced by threat, duress, or inducement. The statements in this case were found to be voluntary and provided detailed information about the illegal imports.

6. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants were given adequate opportunity to file replies to the show cause notice and appear for personal hearings. The adjudicating authority provided sufficient opportunity, and the appellants chose not to avail themselves of it. The order was not found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice, as fairness was shown by the decision-maker to the individuals proceeded against.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed as the Tribunal found no merits in the submissions made by the appellants. The facts and evidence were admitted by the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The cross objections were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →