9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 182 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 112(a) and u/s 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - employee of the company - helping the importer in importing mis-declared and under-valued goods - evasion of Customs Duty - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the said importer Mr. M.A. Mujahid, Proprietor of M/s Great Overseas, has used the email ID and address of this Appellant behind his back and without his permission - It is further found that the said mobile number 9246368100 was being used as a common telephone of the concern of the Appellant, wherein, all the staff were using it for making and receiving calls in connection with the business of the Appellant as well as for personal purposes. Thus, Mr. M.A. Mujahid had used the said phone which was also available to him as an employee. The statement of M.A. Mujahid was recorded on different occasions and he has never uttered a word or stated anything implicating this Appellant or pointing out any abetment on his part. We further find that the said importer M.A. Mujahid, having come to know of the error in the shipping documents had approached the Customs Department at the Gateway Port for amendment of their IGM. Under the facts and circumstances, on being so advised, the said importer had filed Bill of Entry on first check basis . Thus, under such admitted facts, no case of mis-declaration or undervaluation is made out - The whole case of Revenue is based on assumptions and presumptions which have no legs to stand. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Sec 112(a) and further Rs. 5,00,000/- under Sec 114AA has been rightly imposed. Summary: Issue: Imposition of Penalty under Sec 112(a) and Sec 114AA The brief facts are that one Mr. MA Mujahid, Proprietor of M/s. Great Overseas, was an employee of M/s. Reliance Tyres till February 2013. The Appellant is the proprietor of M/s Reliance Tyres. Mujahid allegedly imported goods misdeclared as 'assorted chappals' in container No.TGHU-7700699. The container also contained 'Glass Chatons, mobile phone batteries, Facial tissues, etc.' After six months, Customs examined the goods and found the misdeclaration. Mujahid admitted using the Appellant's firm email ID and phone number for his import business without the Appellant's knowledge. The Appellant was alleged to have abetted the import of misdeclared and undervalued goods to evade customs duty. SCN dated 18.07.2014 proposed to confiscate the goods and impose penalties on Mujahid and the Appellant under Sec 112(a) and Sec 114AA. The OIO dated 30.11.2015 confirmed the penalties, rejecting the declared value of Rs. 1,72,99,953/- and redetermining it at Rs. 4,58,25,512/-. The goods were confiscated with an option to redeem on payment of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Penalties of Rs. 5,00,000/- each were imposed on Mujahid and the Appellant under Sec 112(a) and Sec 114AA. The Appellant contested the order before the Tribunal. Assailing the Impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the OIO was not a speaking order and was based on assumptions and preconceived notions. The evidence relied upon was not conclusive proof of the Appellant's involvement. The Appellant's email and phone were accessible to all employees, and no scientific or legal proof of the Appellant's complicity was provided. The Counsel cited precedents where penalties were not imposed in the absence of concrete evidence. Opposing the Appeal, the learned AR for Revenue argued that there was sufficient evidence of the Appellant's involvement in the misdeclaration. The Appellant's phone number and email were used in the import transactions, and the PAN address of the Importer was that of M/s Reliance Tyres. The AR also mentioned a previous case of misdeclaration involving the Appellant. The Tribunal found that the importer used the Appellant's email and address without his permission. The common phone number was used by all employees. Mujahid never implicated the Appellant in his statements. The importer had approached Customs for amendment of IGM due to errors, and filed the Bill of Entry on a 'first check basis'. The Tribunal concluded that there was no case of misdeclaration or undervaluation and that the Revenue's case was based on assumptions and presumptions. The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order concerning the Appellant, and granted consequential benefits in accordance with law. (Pronounced in the Open Court on 05.10.2023)
|
