Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : S.K. Jindal (Director) Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 50306 of 2022 [SM]
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/08/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

S.K. Jindal (Director) Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

Held that deliberate concealment relating to mis-declaration of the goods and overvaluing with the intention to avail higher duty drawback is untenable

Facts- On the basis of intelligence, two shipments of appellant were detained and examined. The quantities of goods were found to tally with that mentioned in respective invoices and packing lists. However, from the visual examination, the leather jackets were clearly visible to be old and used and as such found to not to match with the declared description of the goods. Accordingly, goods of both the shipments were detained under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 vide Panchnama dated 17.02.2017.

During the investigation, there appeared admission of the Director of the appellant vide is statement dated 29.03.2017 and also of the F-card holder of appellant’s CHA, Sh. Anit Kumar Jha vide his statement dated 07.04.2017 about goods covered in the shipment to be old and used. It was also an admission of the Director of appellant that the value of old and used jackets was low whereas the higher value for those jackets was declared before customs.

Hence the Show Cause Notice No. 39/2017 dated 01.08.2017 alleging that the goods which were subsequently seized vide seizure Memo dated 02.05.2017 covered under the aforesaid shipping bills since have been admitted to be exported by deliberately mis­declaring the description and inflating the value of the goods for purpose of wrongly availing drawback in contravention of the second proviso to Rule 3 (1) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and overvaluation in contravention of Section 50 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, accordingly, were proposed liable to confiscation. The declared price was prayed to be rejected and the claimed drawback amount was also proposed to be rejected. In addition, penalties under Section 114 (iii) and under Section 114 AA not only on the appellant but also on the Director of the appellant were proposed to be imposed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031