9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 702 - AT - CustomsMis-declaration of goods - under-valuation of goods - fraudulent import of the Land Rover which was imported in contravention of the Customs Act, 1962 - retraction of statements - benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2002 - penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act - HELD THAT - There is no denial of appellant, despite retracting his earlier statement, that Shri Sumit Walia was running a business of sale and purchase of cars including that of high end luxury imported cars from his premises of petrol pump. This is also admitted by the appellant that he knew that Shri Sumit Walia with his associate Shri Kunal Kapoor is importing such cars in the name of different persons instead of importing in their own name - These admitted facts are opined sufficient to falsify retraction of the statement of appellant. The retracted statement is held to be an afterthought to manipulate evidence. There is no other evidence on record to prove the appellant s innocence as far as the knowledge of fraudulent import by Shri Sumit Walia is concerned. Violation of principle of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is observed from the order under challenge that three opportunities of personal hearing were awarded to the appellant, that too, with reasonable time for appearance but the appellant fail to appear. No reason has been put forth by the appellant for not receiving those notices also for not marking appearance before the Commissioner (Appeals). The intentional absence cannot be ruled out. Jurisdiction - power of DRI Officers to issue SCN - HELD THAT - The latest decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT . The said decision clarifies that the show cause notices issued for confiscation of the goods do not debar the officer of DRI to be competent. It is only the show cause notices for demanding differential duties as issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, that the DRI Officers were not held to be the proper officers. The present case relates to confiscation of the land rover in question. Imposition of penalty in terms of Section 112 (b) of Customs Act - HELD THAT - The appellant cannot deny acquiring possession of the Land Rover which is found to have been imported with a tampered chassis which is a stolen car but has been imported as a new car that too under-valuing its cost - there are no infirmity in the order under challenge, when the penalty of ₹ 8,00,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
- Appeal against penalty imposition and confiscation of imported vehicle - Allegation of fraudulent import and evasion of customs duty - Violation of principle of natural justice in passing the order - Competency of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notice Analysis: 1. Penalty Imposition and Confiscation: The appeal was filed challenging the penalty imposed on the appellant for his involvement in the import of a Land Rover sports car with a tampered chassis. The appellant, a petrol pump owner, was found to have knowingly accepted the vehicle from an individual involved in fraudulent imports. Despite the appellant's denial of direct involvement, the tribunal held that his knowledge of the fraudulent activities and active participation in the transaction warranted the penalty imposition under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. Allegation of Fraudulent Import and Duty Evasion: The case involved allegations of importing high-end luxury cars by mis-declaring them as new to evade customs duty. The appellant's association with individuals engaged in such activities, including knowingly accepting the imported vehicle, led to the confirmation of the penalty. The tribunal found the evidence presented by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be sufficient in proving the appellant's involvement in the fraudulent import scheme. 3. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice: The appellant claimed that the order-in-appeal was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as he was allegedly not given a fair opportunity to present his case. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant failed to appear for three scheduled hearings without providing valid reasons, indicating intentional absence which could not be overlooked. 4. Competency of DRI to Issue Show Cause Notice: The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue the show cause notice, citing previous decisions. The tribunal referred to a recent Supreme Court decision clarifying that DRI officers are competent to issue show cause notices for confiscation of goods, as in the present case, despite certain limitations on their authority in cases involving differential duties under Section 28 of the Customs Act. In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the penalty imposition of ?8,00,000 on the appellant for his involvement in the fraudulent import scheme, dismissing the appeal against the order-in-appeal. The judgment emphasized the appellant's knowledge and active participation in the transaction, despite his attempts to deny direct involvement, leading to the confirmation of the penalty.
|
