9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1319 - AT - CustomsLiability of Custodian to pay demand duty - Goods lost from the custody of the custodian, CONCOR - customs seal missing and replaced by a red colour private seal with no number - Inland Container Depot ICD declaring the imported goods as glass beads with holes - mis-declaring the nature of goods - Imported goods were glass chatons - confiscation - imposition of penalty - violation of section 45 - HELD THAT - It is true that after finding the discrepancies in the declaration on 24.11.2014 the officer of customs took time and seized them only by seizure memo dated 23.02.2015 u/s 110. He also sealed the container with container customs seal numbers 227393 and 227394. He handed over the goods along with sealed container to CONCOR on 24.02.2015. There is nothing on record to show that the customs officers had taken the goods out of the customs area. There is also nothing on record to show that anybody else was permitted to and had taken the goods from customs area. With reference to a letter dated 24.02.2015 the custodian found on 28.2.2015 that the container seal was broken and there was a private seal in red colour without any seal number. On opening, they found the goods were lost. Clearly, there is no scope of any interpretation in this chain of events except that the goods were pilfered while they were in the custody of the custodian CONCOR. Therefore, we find that in terms of section 45 (3), the CONCOR had to pay customs duty. Since part of the duty was already paid by the importer only the differential duty was demanded from CONCOR in the impugned order. We, therefore, find infirmity in the impugned order in so far as the confirmation of demand of duty u/s 45 (iii) on CONCOR is concerned. Imposition of penalty u/s 117 - Clearly, there is violation of section 45 by the CONCOR inasmuch as it had not taken proper care of the goods in its custody and as a result they were pilfered. The value of the goods which were pilfered is Rs. 5,93,25,481/-. Considering this amount, we find that penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed on CONCOR u/s 117 is fair and reasonable and calls for no interference. Penalty imposed u/s 112(a) and 114 AA - confiscation - In this case, the importer is not in the business of importing the glass beads or glass chatons and was indeed a regular importer of radiators for tractors. This consignment was different and the importer had provided samples of the goods to be imported to Shri Bhatt who was the Manager of Shri B S Mann. In turn, Shri Bhatt had shown those samples to Shri Mann. In this factual matrix we find no reason to believe that Shri Mann had innocently filed the Bill of Entry with a wrong declaration. Both Shri Mann and his Manager were fully aware of actual goods being imported and had filed Bills of Entry with the wrong description. Therefore, the goods were correctly held to be liable for confiscation u/s 111 (l)and (n) of the Customs Act. However, before the goods could be confiscated they were pilfered after their seizure while in the custody of the CONCOR. The Commissioner had, therefore, not imposed any redemption fine. Penalty u/s 112 (a) can be imposed on any person who, in relation to a goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation u/s 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act. In this case, the glass chatons were imported and having seen the samples even after the import Shri B S Mann and through his employees filed a Bill of Entry for glass beads. In fact, 90% of the goods were glass chatons. We, therefore, find that Shri B S Mann was correctly held liable to penalty u/s 112(a). The value of the goods in this case was Rs. 5,92,25,481/-. Shri B S Mann, through his employees, filed the Bill of Entry mis-declaring the nature of goods having first obtained samples of the goods even before filing the Bill of Entry. As is clear from the cross-examination by Shri B S Mann, Manager of Shri Bhatt that not only he but also Shri B S Mann, himself had seen the samples before filing the Bill of Entry. We, therefore, have no hesitation in finding that the Bill of Entry filed knowingly mis-declaring the nature of goods. Thus, we find that the penalty u/s 114 AA imposed on Shri B S Mann needs to be sustained. Hence, we uphold the impugned order in so far as it pertains Shri B S Mann and reject his appeal. All the three appeals are dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declared value and re-determination of value. 2. Liability for confiscation and imposition of penalties. 3. Demand of differential duty and imposition of penalties on CONCOR. 4. Imposition of penalties on individuals involved. Summary: 1. Rejection of Declared Value and Re-determination of Value: The Commissioner of Customs (Import) rejected the declared value of Rs. 19,20,433/- for the goods and re-determined the value as Rs. 5,93,25,481/- under Rule-9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Import Goods) Rules, 2007. 2. Liability for Confiscation and Imposition of Penalties: The goods with the re-determined value were held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (1) & (m) and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, no redemption fine was imposed as the goods were pilfered and not available for confiscation. Various penalties were imposed on different parties under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962: - M/s Nomita International: Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(v) and Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 114AA. - Sh. Atal Bhushan Bhatt: Rs. 2,00,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(v) and Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 114AA. - Sh. B.S.Mann: Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 112(a) and Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 114AA. - Sh. Rohit Sharma: Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112(a) and Rs. 50,000/- under Section 114AA. 3. Demand of Differential Duty and Imposition of Penalties on CONCOR: M/s Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR) was held liable for the differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,68,34,053/- under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods were lost while under its custody. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Imposition of Penalties on Individuals Involved: - Shri Bhalinder Singh Mann: The penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 112(a) and Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 114AA was upheld. The evidence showed that both Shri Mann and his Manager were aware of the actual goods being imported and had filed Bills of Entry with a wrong description. - Shri Rohit Sharma: The penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112(a) and Rs. 50,000/- under Section 114AA was upheld. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act revealed his awareness and involvement in the mis-declaration of the import consignment. Conclusion: All three appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
|
