Tribunal overturns Comm. Appeals' decision, rules no deliberate suppression of facts under Customs Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was not applicable as there was no deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Alleged non-disclosure of Retail Sale Price (RSP) of imported motor vehicle parts.
2. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 versus the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Non-Disclosure of RSP:

The appellant, an authorized dealer and service center of Bentley Motors Ltd., imported spare parts through courier mode. A show cause notice dated 06.12.2016 alleged that the appellant cleared goods without disclosing the RSP, leading to a short payment of customs duty amounting to Rs. 14,29,047/- for the period 21.12.2012 to 25.05.2014. The appellant contended that the courier agent filed the requisite Bills of Entry based on invoices from the foreign consignor and that the appellant had no role in the declaration process. The Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, asserting that the appellant knowingly did not declare the RSP despite being aware of the requirement.

2. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:

The show cause notice invoked Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, which allows for an extended period of limitation up to five years in cases of collusion, wilful mis-statement, or suppression of facts. The appellant argued that the extended period could not be invoked as they had no role in the assessment of the goods. The Tribunal noted that the duty was paid by the courier agent based on the assessment by the proper officer, and the appellant's role was limited to receiving the goods and paying the duty to the courier agent. The Tribunal found that there was no deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant, referencing Supreme Court judgments that suppression must be deliberate and with intent to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking the extended period were not met.

3. Applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 versus Legal Metrology Act, 2009:

The appellant contended that the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 were not applicable as they were superseded by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 effective from 01.04.2011. However, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to address this contention, given that the primary issue of the extended period of limitation was decided in favor of the appellant.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), concluding that the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was not applicable due to the lack of deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

---