TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The brief facts are that one Mr. MA Mujahid, Proprietor of M/s. Great Overseas, was an employee of M/s. Reliance Tyres till February 2013. The Appellant is the proprietor of M/s Reliance Tyres. Mujahid allegedly imported goods misdeclared as 'assorted chappals' in container No.TGHU-7700699. The container also contained 'Glass Chatons, mobile phone batteries, Facial tissues, etc.' After six months, Customs examined the goods and found the misdeclaration. Mujahid admitted using the Appellant's firm email ID and phone number for his import business without the Appellant's knowledge. The Appellant was alleged to have abetted the import of misdeclared and undervalued goods to evade customs duty.
SCN dated 18.07.2014 proposed to confiscate the goods and impose penalties on Mujahid and the Appellant under Sec 112(a) and Sec 114AA. The OIO dated 30.11.2015 confirmed the penalties, rejecting the declared value of Rs. 1,72,99,953/- and redetermining it at Rs. 4,58,25,512/-. The goods were confiscated with an option to redeem on payment of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Penalties of Rs. 5,00,000/- each were imposed on Mujahid and the Appellant under Sec 112(a) and Sec 114AA. The Appellant contested the order before the Tribunal.
Assailing the Impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the OIO was not a speaking order and was based on assumptions and preconceived notions. The evidence relied upon was not conclusive proof of the Appellant's involvement. The Appellant's email and phone were accessible to all employees, and no scientific or legal proof of the Appellant's complicity was provided. The Counsel cited precedents where penalties were not imposed in the absence of concrete evidence.
Opposing the Appeal, the learned AR for Revenue argued that there was sufficient evidence of the Appellant's involvement in the misdeclaration. The Appellant's phone number and email were used in the import transactions, and the PAN address of the Importer was that of M/s Reliance Tyres. The AR also mentioned a previous case of misdeclaration involving the Appellant.
The Tribunal found that the importer used the Appellant's email and address without his permission. The common phone number was used by all employees. Mujahid never implicated the Appellant in his statements. The importer had approached Customs for amendment of IGM due to errors, and filed the Bill of Entry on a 'first check basis'. The Tribunal concluded that there was no case of misdeclaration or undervaluation and that the Revenue's case was based on assumptions and presumptions.
The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order concerning the Appellant, and granted consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(Pronounced in the Open Court on 05.10.2023)
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
