Amit Bhutoria Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata allowed the appeals filed by a government-approved valuer challenging penalties imposed under Sections 112(a)(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties arose from an investigation initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence into alleged over-invoicing of imports declared as rough and semi-precious stones, purportedly to facilitate trade-based money laundering. The appellant was accused of conniving with importers and others by certifying inflated values and misdescribing inferior-quality stones as precious or semi-precious.
The Tribunal noted that although samples were drawn from consignments examined by the appellant, those samples were never sent for examination to the Geological Survey of India or to the government-appointed valuer relied upon by the department. Instead, the investigation and valuation were based on stones allegedly recovered from roadside locations, which were not shown to be the same goods examined by the appellant. Neither the show cause notices nor the adjudication orders explained why the original samples examined by the appellant were not tested.
It was further observed that Customs authorities assessed and cleared the goods on their own valuation and did not rely on the appellant’s valuation for determining duty liability. There was no evidence that the appellant derived any benefit beyond prescribed professional fees, received extra consideration, or had prior knowledge of any alleged over-invoicing or misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that mere professional valuation, without proof of intent, collusion, or reliance by Customs, could not attract penalties.
