Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (4) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w-how with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India evidenced by letter No. EC.CO.FITT/19/12.51.00 (B-135)96/97, dated 11-7-1996. Total consideration as per that agreement for getting this technical know-how was US $ 1,50,000. The said amount was to be paid in instalments as specified in Clause 5 of that agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, technical drawings and designs were supplied under eight airway bills. For clearing the goods sent by those airway bills authorised courier DHL Worldwide Express filed bill of entry on 1-11-1996. The airway bills showed value at US $ 15. Those consignments were not cleared by the Customs authorities because of their suspicion regarding the valuation. The eight packages sent under the eight airway bill .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot the importers or the owners of the goods which landed pursuant to the eight airway bills. Learned counsel further submitted that the bill of entry filed by the courier and the examination conducted by the Customs authorities were not made available to them to make an effective representation regarding their ownership. Argument even went to the extent of saying that the appellants were not liable for any penalty under Section 112 of the Act because they did not do or omit to do anything which will warrant imposition of penalty under that Section. Before going into the question as to whether the courier acted in their own accord in filing the bill of entry without an authorisation by the appellant, we will first deal with the contention th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant and none other than this appellant. In view of these circumstances, it is too late in the day for learned counsel for the appellant to advance an argument that appellant was innocent of this import and that they had not authorised the DHL Worldwide Express to file the bill of entry. 4. After having taken part in the inspection and examination of the packages received under the eight airway bills, appellant cannot be allowed to contend that they did not authorise DHL Worldwide Express to clear the goods on their behalf. Nor can they advance an argument that they were not getting the consignment as importer or as owner. Appellant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same breath. So, we over-rule the contention advanced by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e goods which were so brought into India are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. The person who did act in such a manner as to make those goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Act. Appellant who made the mis-declaration regarding value of the eight consignments made those consignments liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and hence personally liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Act. We would in this light, hold that the order passed by the adjudicating authority is unassailable and we do not find any reason to interfere with it. 7. Learned counsel representing the appellant brought to our notice a portion from S. Dutt Majumder s Customs Valuation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... int raised by the learned counsel representing the appellant was that the Commissioner did not deal with mensrea of the appellant in the import of articles covered by eight airway bills in the entire order. Mens rea is a mental element. It is to be found out from the facts. It is borne out from the circumstance in the case. As per the know-how agreement, the value of the drawings comes to US $ 40,000. Appellant expert s view is that the value of the drawings must be 25% of that US $ 40,000 which is US $ 10,000. As against this US $ 10,000, the appellant showed the value at US $ 120. This action proves the existence of mensrea. The mental element discernable from the facts is that appellant resorted to under valuation for avoiding payment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates