Case Law Details
John Miranda Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, demand of Custom duty was dropped as Bill of Entries were in the name of some different entities but the penalties were confirmed as the Appellant were actively involved in import of the goods and undervalued the same.
Facts: In present facts of the case, an Intelligence was gathered by DRI, Ahmedabad, indicated that the importer, were indulging in evasion of Customs duty by resorting to gross undervaluation in the import of electronic goods viz, Car audio items viz. Car Speaker, CD Players, Amplifiers etc. imported by them through Kolkata Port. The intelligence indicated that the importer was manipulating the actual value of the imported consignments in collusion with the supplier firm and was declaring lower value before Indian Customs for assessment of duty thereby paying lesser amount of Customs duty. The intelligence also indicated that the imports were being made by the Appellant in the name of their own firms as well as by using the IEC of other firms.
The appellant submitted that the period involved in both the cases is March, 2007 to March, 2008 and the show-cause notice has been issued on 1st March, 2012 & 27th March, 2012 respectively. He also submits that the demand of duty from the appellants is un-sustainable ex-facie being contrary to Section 28 of the Act. As per the provisions of the Act, duty not paid or short paid or not levied or short levied erroneously refunded can be demanded and recovered only from the importer within the meaning of Section 2 (26) of the Act. There is no dispute, as none can be, that all the relevant documents including bills of lading, bills of entry, packing list etc. were in the name of some another entity as importer. The assessment of the said goods and clearance thereof, upon payment of assessed duties of Customs was also made in the name of the said importer. There is no provision in the Act for providing for any deemed importer of goods for demanding or recovering of duty of Customs allegedly evaded from any other person except the importer on record. Therefore, duty cannot be demanded from the appellant.
The Revenue, referred to the various statements of the appellants during the course of investigation and submitted that it was the case of under-valuation and it was been admitted by the appellants that they have paid the money to the overseas suppliers having their office in India. Therefore, the penalties on the appellants are rightly imposed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
