9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of Lading and Invoice. The invoice was issued by the Singapore party, M/s. De Al Dross and showed the price of US $ 530 per M/Ton. All the three documents were attested by the Canara Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Suspicion of the Customs House was aroused because the invoice number quoted in the Bill of Lading happened to be a different one. The authorities started enquiry into the matter. The Canara Bank Branch wrote to them that the documents tendered by the appellant had not originated from their Bank and that the original documents of the consignment were still available with them (the Bank) as they had not been retired by the appellant. Later, the Bank gave the true documents to the Customs, including the Invoice No. K-5103, dated 31-12-1986 issued by the Hungarian supplier. It was in the name of M/s. Trimex Tradings(s) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, through the Bank of India. This was the invoice cited in the Bill of Lading of the consignment. It showed the sale price of $ 605 per M/Ton. It also came out that the Letter of Credit for the consignment had also been opened by M/s. Trimex, Singapore and not by the appellant or by M/s. De Al Dross. The Bill of Lading had, by suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have the goods redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3.5 lakhs in each of the four consignments comprising 45 M/Tons and Rs. 3.15 lakhs in the fifth consignment comprising 40 M/Tons. In addition, the Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant in each of the 5 cases. The appellant is now in appeal against these orders. 6. We have heard both sides and have given the matter our earnest consideration. We cannot help observing that the appellant s case bristles with falsehoods from beginning to end. The phenomenon of goods being imported from Hungry but the sale, invoice for them being issued from Singapore surprised us. The learned representative of the department stated during the hearing in the court that this subterfuge had become a common modus operand for under-invoicing the goods. It could be so. The Hungarian supplier was a Government agency and was probably not willing to play ball in fudging the real value of the goods. This explains as to why the appellant chose not to contact the foreign supplier direct for the purchase or through his Indian agent and had to go in search of someone else in a third country - Singapore. The straight-forward course for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank s letters do disclose some foul play. The appellant s hand in it cannot be denied because he alone stood to benefit from it. Even if, for argument s sake, we were to accept that technically the documents were not forged with the Bank s seal and signatures, the other possibility could only be that the appellant arranged to get duplicate sets of invoices prepared at two different prices for the same goods and in collusion with some Bank official got the lower priced invoices attested and filed them before the customs. If this is not calculated fraud, we wonder what else it is. The appellant argued that he did not stand to gain by arranging two sets of documents. Well, he obviously did stand to gain by clearing the goods through customs on payment of lesser duty to the tune of Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The appellant said that in any case there was no requirement of submitting Bank attested invoices to customs. True, But the appellant on his own got the attestation done in order to lend credibility to the Singapore lower price invoices so that customs would pass the consignment without demur. 9. The appellant s further conduct also proves his mala fides. The Customs authorities sent him su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ped. In the photo copy produced before us the word buyer is scored out and replaced by the word seller in hand. However, the correction has not been initialled by any party. In any case, the contract said nothing whether the goods were to be insured for a higher value. In the absence of any such stipulation, the only presumption was that they were to be insured for the full invoice value. And this is what really was done. The Marine Insurance Policy itself stated that the particulars given therein, including the value, were as per invoice . It is, therefore, not true that the Marine Insurance Policy gave an inflated value. It gave the exact value as per the invoice. It is not a mere co-incidence that the value given in the Insurance Policy came to exact US $ 605 per M/Ton which was also the true price of the goods as per the Hungarian supplier s invoice to M/s. Trimex. 12. In the face of the aforesaid facts, we cannot but confirm the Collector s finding that the appellant deliberately mis-declared the value of the goods with intent to evade payment of a part of the customs duty due. 13. So far as the Import Trade Control violation is concerned, the learned representative o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
