9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded. The assessees are engaged in the business of importing and selling film rolls used in cars. The consignment of Retro Reflective Stickers arrived at the Port of Chennai in Line No.297 IM No.1311 by a Vessel, Tiger Star V-866 on 23.01.2001. Based on the information, the DRI took up investigation. The consequence of such search revealed as follows. i) M/s.Royal Impex had imported a consignment declared to contain 75 Plastic Sticker Rolls (Retro-reflective sheetings) and declared the weight as 1530 kgs. The vessel arrived on 23.1.2001. ii) Originally the container was declared as FCL and subsequently M/s. Tata NYK Transport Systems Ltd. Chennai was requested to declare the container as LCL and the gross weight of the consignment was indicated as 1530 Kgs on 12-1-01. iii) On examination, the consignment was found to contain 675 retro reflective sticker rolls each measuring 150 ft x 2 ft with a total weight of 6650 kgs instead of the declared 75 rolls with a gross weight of 1530 kgs. iv) Shri. Ravikumar, Proprietor of M/s. Royal Impex in his statement on 2-6-01 admitted that he had deliberately misdeclared the number of rolls and as well as the weight with an intention to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. The objection raised by the assessee that Section 111(d) of the Customs Act is not attracted is accepted by the Commissioner, as there are no findings rendered thereon. However, the Commissioner held that the provisions of Section 111(f) and 111(i) of the Customs Act were attracted to the facts of the case and the same has been dealt with in detail. Accordingly, the Commissioner passed an order confiscating 675 Rolls of Retro-Reflective Stickers under Section 111(f) and 111(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed redemption, after increasing the value. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on G.Ravikumar @ Sticker Ravi under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Adjudicating Authority, both Shri.G.Ravikumar and M/s. Royal Impex filed appeals before the Tribunal contending that the confiscation does not arise in this case, primarily, on the ground that the Bill of Entry is not yet filed by them and hence the charge of mis-declaration has to fail as the event did not occur. Accordingly, the assessee cannot be made liable for the mistake in the Bill of Lading or Import Manifest. 6. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure that the unscrupulous importer does not mis-declare and seek to amend the import document if they are caught. In the course of investigation, the DRI found that the importer knowing well that the goods mentioned in the Bill of Lading are lesser, maintained silence for more than two months after the arrival of the vessel, even though law mandates that the importer should clear the goods within 30 days of import. 12. In the course of investigation, the Department found that the supplier and the buyer are not new to each other. This is buttressed by the statement recorded from Ravikumar under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 2.6.2001, where he admits that he is aware of the mis-declaration. His statement is clear to the effect that his intention was to mis-declare the quantity and to evade the payment of duty. It is to be noted that the statement is refuted and retracted after four months. Further investigation in the case revealed that Tata NYK Transport Stems Ltd., in their letter dated 18.08.2001 had stated that they have not received any request for amendment of manifest either from the importer or from the CHA. The DRI, after noticing that the importer has been importing fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls. 11. It is also strange that while the quantity was amended in the Bill of Lading, none of the other things, including value, was amended. It is extremely difficult to believe that a supplier can charge a higher amount for the same No. of rolls weighing 1/5th of the total weight. It is also noticed that the same supplier had been supplying the same consignment earlier too land the quantity supplied used to be about 2 cases each time. 12. However, the invoice details are not to be totally relied upon because of the fact that it was ever produced to the department officially, but only recovered during the investigation. It is also to be noted that the order was placed in person and on that basis supply was made. 13. The fact that (i) neither the Bill of Lading was amended nor any application made to the Steamer Agent for getting the import manifest amended. (ii) no effort was made to file a Bill of Entry for more than two months, knowing fully well the provisions of Sec.28 of the Custom Act, 1962. (iii) no reason has been given for the delay in filing the Bill of Entry. (iv) Only the weight has been amended without changing anything else in the bill of Lading. Show that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation under Sec.111(f) and 111(i) of the custom act, 1962. 14. The Adjudicating Authority came to hold that Sri. Ravikumar was trying to be evasive of the whole import and did not even take steps to amend the import manifest for more than seven months as was observed by the Commissioner. The assessee, who has invested huge money, strangely did not even file the Bill of Entry before the Department for more than two months and tries to undo the wrongful act by saying that there was a mistake. The Commissioner, therefore, comes to hold that there was sufficient ground to come to the conclusion that the import is contrary to the provision under sections 111(f) and 111(i) of the Customs Act. 15. In paragraph 13.2 of the order of the Commissioner extracted supra, there is a clear finding that the dutiable goods, without being mentioned properly in the import manifest, were found concealed with an intention to evade payment of duty. This act of the asssessee/respondent is revealed in the course of investigation and by various conducts, as has been observed by the Adjudicating Authority. When the conduct of the assessee is to evade payment of duty, the provisions of Section 111(f) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the shipper to show lesser quantity of dutiable goods, it is certainly a case that falls under section 111(f) and 111(i) of the Customs Act. Hence, we have no hesitation to uphold and confirm the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, we find that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. The department has not only proved the complicity of the importer in importing these goods in contravention of the provisions, but also proved that the importer has been regularly importing such goods. 18. Section 112(a) of the Act provides that in relation to any goods when any person does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the act, he shall be liable to penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater in the following manner: (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding the duty so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
