9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly after the approval, the shipping line issues the final bill of lading. Thus, under the facts and circumstances, I find that it is a case of mis-declaration, made out on the part of the appellant-assessee with intention to evade Customs duty. Confiscation - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that: - I find that the differential duty involved is only ₹ 1,02,353/- as compared to the bill of entry filed by the appellant. In this view of the matter, the penalty imposed is reduced to ₹ 1,02,353/- under Section 112(a) and the penalty under Section 114AA is reduced ₹ 2 Iacs. Further, redemption fine is reduced ₹ 2 lacs - confiscated goods allowed to be released on payment of fine and penalty. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/70905/2016-CU[SM] - A/70010/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 16-12-2016 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rahul Ranjan, Advocate for the Applicant (s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt. (AR) for the Department (s) Per Mr. Anil Choudhary : The issue in this appeal is, whether pursuant to filing of IGM on 12.11.2015 stating description of Cargo as STC Aluminium scrap Tread as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the export declaration was mentioned as Aluminium Scrap and the declaration for berry/clove was missed. In support, he provided the letter dated 10.12.2015 addressed to the shipping line, letter dated 28.12.2015 of shipping line, Bill of Lading TALADS01912416 dated 10.11.2015, commercial invoice No.Y15/141A dated 07.09.2015, Packing List, PSIC, County of origin certificate and Form 9 to prove that Aluminium Scrap tread' 7.552 MT and copper scrap berry/clove 14.544 MT was ordered and procured. It was requested that the amendent as sought by the shipping line may be allowed by the Customs. 2.3 As the amendment to IGM was denied owing to an alert, the representation dated 11.01.2016 did not warrant any further action. Also as the importer did not file the bill of entry in terms of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, action was initiated for sale of the goods under Section 48 of the Act ibid and an intimation to this effect was sent to the importer vide C.No. (30) Noida Cus/SIIB/ICDDadri/Ankit Metals/02/2016/1440 dated 01.06.2016. Consequently, the importer turned up and filed bill of entry No. 5710589 dated 21.06.2016. On 30.06.2016 the container was examined under f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping line; that IGM is filed based on the documents submitted to shipping line hence only aluminum scrap tread is mentioned in the IGM; that he admitted his mistake for not taking any action for filing amendment immediately on 27.11.2015; that when the mistake was communicated to them they asked their supplier to approach shipping line for necessary amendment and they in return submitted all the required, documents for amendment to shipping line; that when he was informed by the shipping line that amendment request has been denied, then they approached SIIB, Noida for amendment; that they were waiting for approval that is why they could not file Bill of entry before 21.06.2016. The importer further requested to assess and adjudicate without issuing show cause notice to them'. He also requested for personal hearing. (emphasis supplied). 2.6 Based on the submission made by M/s Ankit Metals vide their letter dated 01.07.2016 and 14.07.2016, M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services P. Ltd., the agent for M/s Trans Asia Line (the carrier) was requested on 22.07.2016 to provide a copy of Bill of Lading No.TALADS01912416 dated 10.11.2015 and the copy of documents submitted by the sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dubai Customs was also for the same goods. As per the procedure of the shipping line stated by them, the draft bill of lading is sent to the shipper for his verification and only after the draft B/L is approved by the shipper, the set of B/L is issued. Thus, it is evident that the consignment of Aluminium and copper scrap was deliberately declared in all their documents as Aluminium scrap alone. Further findings are recorded that though the importer admits to have received the documents on his email on or around 15 th November, 2015, he did not take any action to get the description of goods changed till 10.12.2015. Thus, the importer in collusion with the shipping line attempted to import mixed scrap of copper and aluminium in the guise of Aluminium scrap. Owing to intelligence, the importer did not succeed in getting the goods cleared as Aluminium scrap and therefore, an amendment application was moved through the shipping line only on 28.12.2015. The revised invoice dated 07.11.2015 of a different entity namely Al-Raha Trading Company, the respective packing list, the PSIC dated 03.11.2015 and certificate of origin dated 07.11.2015 and the undated Form 9 appeared to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made out. It was further found that the appellant-importer in connivance of the shipping line caused creation of documents in respect of the impugned goods leading to filing of IGM in respect of the goods with and weight thereof. Further amendment of IGM of forged documents. Thus, for wrong filing Section 30 to hold that the goods are liable to 111 (f) and further as the case of were liable to confiscation under Section of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner was pleased the declared value of goods, on account of mis-declaration redetermination of the value of the goods at ₹ 55,21,118/-. Further the impugned goods were held liable to be confiscation 111 (f) 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. On the option to redeem, to the appellant, on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakh with further liability to pay appropriate duty on enhanced value. Further penalty of ₹ 5 lakh was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and also equal amount of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Further a penalty of ₹ 7.5 lakh was imposed in the Shipping Line M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services P. Ltd, under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of Customs was not required as such. Further, the appellant-importer had filed bill of entry on first check basis. It has been further urged that the value declared in the bill of entry (of the goods/consignment) is at ₹ 51,21,118/- which was only about 10% of variation in value, not making out a case of under valuation. Further, as per the bill of entry, the duty declared payable was at ₹ 10,37,778/- and duty payable on revaluation have been worked at ₹ 11,40,131.80/-, thus, the differential duty involved came to ₹ 1,02,353/- and thus the demand of differential duty at ₹ 7,50,077.13/-, is unjustified. He further pleads that no case of deliberative defiance of the provisions of the Act is made out against the appellant, as such the penalty imposed are fit to be set aside. Accordingly, the redemption fine is also fit to be set aside. 6. The Ld. DR for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. He further stated that from over all circumstances, it is evident that the appellant-importer in collusion with the shipper have admitted to evade the Customs duty. He further urges that in the course of import-export, a series of documents are prepared like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
