2016 (9) TMI 1011 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Penalties for Customs Duty Evasion

The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties on specific individuals for alleged evasion of Customs duty through mis-declaration of imported goods. The ... Evasion of customs duty - mis-declaration - natural marble blocks and slabs - artificial marble tiles and vitrified tiles - approach to settlement commission by few co-noticees and importer as per provisions of section 127B of Customs Act, 1962 - penalty proceedings dropped by settlement commission for these co-noticees - whether the immunity from penalty be available to the other co-noticees who did not approach the tribunal i.e., decision of tribunal be applied on other co-noticees? - Held that: - the decision in the case of SK Colombowala v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2007 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] is relied upon, where it was held that, the case against all co-noticees comes to an end once the order of settlement is passed in respect of the person entitled to file an application before the Settlement Commission and therefore, penalty imposed upon the appellants cannot be sustained and is set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues involved:1. Review of order by competent committee directing appeal before Tribunal.2. Alleged evasion of Customs duty by mis-declaration of imported goods.3. Imposition of penalty on specific individuals involved.4. Interpretation of Tribunal decisions regarding co-noticees' liability.5. Application of Settlement Commission's order and High Court decisions.6. Precedential value of Tribunal decisions and pending appeals.7. Distinction between different legal schemes for immunity.8. Continuance of proceedings against co-noticees based on settled grounds.Issue 1: Review of order by competent committee directing appeal before TribunalThe judgment discusses the review of an order by the competent committee, directing the original authority to file an appeal before the Tribunal. This action was taken under the powers granted by section 129D(1) of the Customs Act 1962. The Tribunal was approached due to proceedings against individuals for alleged evasion of Customs duty by mis-declaration of imported goods.Issue 2: Alleged evasion of Customs duty by mis-declaration of imported goodsThe proceedings involved allegations of evasion of Customs duty through mis-declaration of description, quantity, and value of imported natural marble blocks, slabs, artificial marble tiles, and vitrified tiles from various countries. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty on a Customs House Agent among others, after proceedings were continued and concluded for specific individuals.Issue 3: Imposition of penalty on specific individuals involvedPenalties were imposed on specific individuals based on the evidence and proceedings. Some individuals had proceedings dropped due to lack of evidence linking them to the admitted cash transactions related to the imports. The decision was influenced by the Tribunal's previous rulings and interpretations regarding the liability of co-noticees in such cases.Issue 4: Interpretation of Tribunal decisions regarding co-noticees' liabilityThe appeal by the Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority should have followed a later Tribunal decision which held a different view on co-noticees' liability. The Tribunal's interpretation of previous decisions and the relevance of these interpretations in the current case were crucial in determining the imposition of penalties on the individuals involved.Issue 5: Application of Settlement Commission's order and High Court decisionsThe Settlement Commission's order and decisions by the High Court were referenced to determine the factual matrix and legal principles applicable to the case. The Tribunal analyzed these references to establish the appropriate course of action regarding penalties and liability in the context of the alleged Customs duty evasion.Issue 6: Precedential value of Tribunal decisions and pending appealsThe judgment highlighted the precedential value of Tribunal decisions and the impact of pending appeals on the interpretation and application of legal principles. The Tribunal considered the status of previous decisions and the relevance of pending appeals in determining the appropriate legal course in the current case.Issue 7: Distinction between different legal schemes for immunityThe judgment discussed the distinction between different legal schemes for immunity, such as the Settlement Commission's immunity and the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme. The application of these schemes and their limitations were crucial in determining the liability and penalties imposed on the individuals involved in the alleged Customs duty evasion.Issue 8: Continuance of proceedings against co-noticees based on settled groundsThe Tribunal's decision emphasized the continuance of proceedings against co-noticees based on settled grounds and the interpretation of previous rulings in similar cases. The judgment analyzed the legal principles and factual circumstances to uphold the decision regarding the liability and penalties imposed on the individuals involved in the evasion of Customs duty.