Sino Import and Export Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, disposed of two connected appeals filed by Sino Import and Export Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, Shri S. Amarish, against a common order confirming customs duty demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. The dispute arose from imports of mulberry raw silk, dupion silk and tussah silk from China, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleged that goods declared as originating from Vietnam had actually originated in China and Uzbekistan and that the importer had undervalued several consignments while wrongly claiming duty exemption under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA). The Department also alleged undervaluation in imports from Uzbekistan and China, resulting in issuance of a show cause notice proposing redetermination of assessable value, recovery of differential duty, confiscation and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed demands aggregating to ₹1,10,21,861, appropriated ₹60 lakh already deposited, ordered confiscation of the imported goods, imposed redemption fine and levied penalties on both the importer and its Director.
Before the Tribunal, the appellants contended that the adjudicating authority had merely reproduced the allegations in the show cause notice without properly analysing the evidence. They argued that the Department had relied on electronic documents without complying with Section 138C of the Customs Act, had relied upon statements recorded under Section 108 without following the procedure prescribed under Section 138B, had ignored contemporaneous import data produced by the importer, had relied upon unsigned invoices and had failed to supply documents received from the Uzbekistan authorities despite repeated requests. The Revenue supported the impugned order and submitted that the importer had admitted undervaluation and that the declared transaction values were liable to rejection.
