Case Law Details
Shri Chinta Haran Ojha Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Chief Commissioner of Customs was directed to consider whether it should be necessary to cause a vigilance enquiry on the system failure to determine how the consignments were cleared when there were so many mis-declaration in description as well as classification of the imported Point of Sale Devices (POS) and Mobile Point of Sale Devices (MPOS) and evasion of customs duty.
Held: Assessee-importer namely M/s Pax Technologies were engaged in import of goods namely Point of Sale Devices (POS) and Mobile Point of Sale Devices (MPOS). Based on an intelligence that the goods were being imported by suppressing actual value of goods, the department intercepted the consignments imported against two Bills of Entry Nos. 3851878 dated 08/01/2016 and 3851698 dated 08/01/2016. On examination, it was found that the goods were not only undervalued, but were mis-classified and imported in violation of relevant Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) provisions too. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it was noted that the importer – appellant and various clearing agent – appellants and persons were consciously part of the entire conspiracy of willful mis-declarations of the import consignments. It was appropriate to ask the Chief Commissioner of Customs to enquire about the systemic failure with regard to clearances of Mobile Point of Sale equipments under various Bills of Entry. It was found that the clearing agents were aware as to the description that was to be given to a consignment to avoid examination of the cargo from the Risk Management Module (RMS). Also, it was surprised to note that in some of the Bills of Entry, the Risk Management Module (RMS) gave examination of the package of the cargo, but still in these cases also the consignment were cleared in spite of the huge mis-declaration with regard to its description, classification as well as the value of imported items. This indicated that there exist a deep malaise in the system of examination and clearance of the cargo. The Chief Commissioner was advised to revisit the standard operating procedure in this regard to ensure that the system was enabled to take care of the instances where a blatant mis-declaration was avoided by the importers to bye-pass the Risk Management Module. Chief Commissioner of Customs was also directed to consider whether it should be necessary to cause a vigilance enquiry to determine how the consignments were cleared when there were so many mis-declaration in description as well as classification of the imported Mobile Point of Sale equipments.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
This batch of 18 appeals preferred by appellants falling broadly in category of importer, CHA representative, Freight Forwarder, consultant, and individuals un-authorizedly engaged in customs clearance work. These appeals have arisen out of a common order-in-original No. 03/2017-18/V.S./COMMR (IMPORT) read with Corrigendum dated 20/07/2018 passed the Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Custom House, New Delhi. The status of the Appellants and the corresponding duty or/and penal liability confirmed against them by the impugned order has been tabulated hereunder:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
