Anil Mathuradas Chopra Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Customs Undervaluation Penalty Upheld on Supplementary Invoices and Voluntary Statement: CESTAT Mumbai
The appeals challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order upholding the demand of differential customs duty, confiscation of goods and penalties arising from imports of 27 consignments of embroidery threads from China during March 2005 to October 2006. During investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the Director gave a voluntary statement explaining the modus operandi of undervaluation, produced supplementary invoices relating to differential amounts paid to the overseas supplier for six Bills of Entry, accepted that the same practice was followed in other imports, and the appellants paid differential duty of ₹24,81,480 during the investigation.
The appellants contended that the case of undervaluation rested only on the admission relating to six consignments and that there was no independent evidence for the remaining consignments. They also argued that the Department had not produced comparable contemporaneous import values and relied on Sino Import and Export Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II (Imports) and Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. South Indian Television (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the Director’s voluntary statement had not been retracted, supplementary invoices showing the suppressed value had been produced, details of the suppressed value for all 27 Bills of Entry had been provided, and the differential duty had been paid during investigation.
