Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs (Port) Vs Aurora Fine Arts (CESTAT Kolkata)
In the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) Vs Aurora Fine Arts, the CESTAT Kolkata has ruled that no penalty action is required when there is a bonafide mistake on an EPCG license. The assessee, after realizing the mistake in declaring the value correctly while filing the Bill of Entry, voluntarily paid the differential duty along with interest. The CESTAT concluded that the mistake was bonafide and no penal action should be taken against the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant field Bill of Entry on 30th December, 2015 for clearance of imported capital goods by claiming the benefit of Notification No.16/2015-Cus dated 01.04.2015, for which, the appellant submitted EPCG Authorization dated 08.12.2015 and the total credit of duty given in such EPCG Authorization is Rs.54,65,880/-. The appellant filed the following declarations in the Bill of Entry :
|
Description of goods |
Komori Brand Four Color Sheet- Fed Offset Printing Press, Enthrone-29 |
| Invoice No. & Date | ICP-16205 dated 17.11.2015 |
| Invoice Value (F/C)- C&F | JPY 36050 |
| Insurance | 62949 |
| Country of Origin | Japan |
| Supplier’s Name | Komori Corporation Japan |
The said Bill of Entry was assessed accordingly as the invoice value was declared in Bill of Entry as JPY-36050. On 28.11.2016, the respondent requested to the Revenue that they are not able to comply with the export obligations and accordingly, requested to allow them to pay Customs duty on the said imported capital goods. On preliminary enquiry, it was found that the imported goods were declared as JPY 36050 instead of JPY 36050000, which was found to be irregular and it was suspected that the imported goods were grossly under-valued. The similar goods were imported at ICD Tughlabad during the said period and value of the machine were found between Rs.1.60 Crore to 2.40 Crore. The appellant was asked to furnish the documents with regard to import of the said consignment and in reply to the enquiry, the respondent submitted the documents and stated that at the time of filing of the Bill of Entry, they made a mistake by indicating invoice value is JPY 36050 instead of JPY 36050000 and paid differential duty along with interest. Later on, a show-cause notice dated 03.02.2017 was issued to the respondent to demand differential duty along with interest and to impose penalty on the respondent and to impose redemption fine as the goods are liable for confiscation.
3. The matter was contested by the respondent before the adjudicating authority, who hold that the mistake committed by the respondent while declaring the value of goods is bonafide mistake and the respondent has been paid the duty and interest, therefore, no penal action is required against the respondent.
4. Against the said order, the Revenue is before us.
5. Heard the ld.A.R. for the Revenue and perused the records.
6. We find that in this case, the total duty credit given in the said EPCG Authorization is R.54,65,880/- and the total duty on the said goods is almost the same. It may be a bonafide mistake of declaring value correctly while filing the Bill of Entry and later on when the mistake was found by the respondents themselves at the time of calculation of duty, the respondents paid the differential duty along with interest. In that circumstances, we do agree with the observations of the adjudicating authority that it is a bonafide mistake of the respondent and no penalty action is required against the respondent. Therefore, we also hold that initially the duty under EPCG Authorization Rs.54,65,880/ and the respondents could not discharge their export obligation and sought re-assessment of the Bill of Entry and at the time of re-assessment, there is a mistake in the Bill of Entry while declaring the value of the impugned goods as JPY 36050 instead of JPY 36050000 and paid the differential duty along with interest. In that circumstances, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the respondent. Therefore, we hold that no penal action is required against the respondent.
7. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, the same is upheld.
8. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
