Amglo Resources Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 unsustainable as alleged mis-declaration of country of origin not proved by the department.
Facts- The main issue in the present case relates to country of origin of The case of the department is that the Appellant herein had mis- declared the country of origin of goods as Zambia instead of Iran. It is relevant to note that the present proceedings have no duty implication as the Appellant admittedly never intended to avail any duty benefit basis the country of origin certificates and have paid duty at proper value determined on the basis of LME price prevalent on the date of assessment.
Present Appeal filed by M/s Amglo Resources Private Limited, the main Appellant, challenges Order-in-Appeal by which penalties u/s. 112(a) and 114AA of the Act respectively have been imposed against the Appellant along with Redemption fine.
Conclusion- Held that the department has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to conclusively prove that the goods had originated in Iran as against Accordingly, the question of imposing any penalty be it under 112(a) of 114AA will not arise.
Held that no evidence has been produced by the department showing any role of Appellant and its directors in the alleged mis-declaration Penalties as confirmed by the impugned order are required to be set aside. Thus, failure on the part of the department to either prove that goods had originated in Iran or prove role of the Appellant or its Directors in the alleged Mis-declaration. Penalty under Section 114AA also in our view cannot be imposed in the facts of the present case.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
Present Appeal filed by M/s Amglo Resources Private Limited, the main Appellant (referred to as Appellant), challenges Order-in-Appeal dated 25.10.2023 by which penalties under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Act respectively have been imposed against the Appellant along with Redemption fine. Two other appeals have been filed by Mr. Vishal Amlani and Satish Amlani, the directors of the Company (referred to as the Director and/or Directors) against the same Order-in-Appeal dated 25.10.2023 imposing separate penalties on each of the directors under Sections 112(a) and 114(AA) of the Act.
1.1 The main issue in the present case relates to country of origin of The case of the department is that the Appellant herein had mis- declared the country of origin (herein after referred to as COO) of goods as Zambia instead of Iran. It is relevant to note that the present proceedings have no duty implication as the Appellant admittedly never intended to avail any duty benefit basis the country of origin certificates (herein after referred to as COO certificates) and have paid duty at proper value determined on the basis of LME price prevalent on the date of assessment.
1.2 The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant during the Normal course of business had raised Purchase Order on NBJ International FZ-LLC, Dubai, UAE (herein after referred to as the supplier) for supply of Copper Cathode on CFR, Nhava Accordingly, it was the duty of the supplier to supply the goods to the Buyer (Appellant) at the destination port viz., Nhava Sheva.
1.3 Four Bills of Entry were filed by the Appellant on the basis of documents provided by the supplier which included COO Certificates showing goods to be of Zambian Origin. The COO certificate contains the stamp of Zambian revenue authorities. The details of Bills of Entry filed along with respective COO Certificate is as under:
