Two importers used same supplier and invoice numbers to evade anti-dumping duty on calculators through separate Bills of Entry

CESTAT New Delhi upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision to club consignments imported by two entities through separate Bills of Entry to evade anti-dumping duty on calculators. The tribunal found that both importers used the same supplier and invoice numbers, with calculator parts stored in one importer's warehouse, indicating an intent to assemble complete calculators. The PCB assembly with display and button cell provided essential character of finished calculators under Interpretative Rule 2(a). CESTAT confirmed undervaluation of DVB remotes and LED diodes based on email evidence showing higher actual transaction values. Differential duty, confiscation under section 111(m), and penalties under sections 112 and 114A were upheld for duty evasion and misclassification. All appeals dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of consignments.
2. Levy of anti-dumping duty.
3. Allegation of undervaluation.
4. Differential duty.
5. Confiscation and penalty.

Summary:

A. Clubbing of Consignments:
The Principal Commissioner was justified in clubbing the consignment of parts of calculators imported by Banke Bihari and Zippo Mobiles through four Bills of Entry. The evidence showed that the parts were imported under the same invoice number from a common supplier, with the intention to assemble calculators and avoid anti-dumping duty. The statements and documents revealed that the imports were managed by Dinesh Udhwani, who was related to the directors of both companies. The goods were imported under the same IGM/Gateway IGM and stored in the same warehouse, indicating a deliberate attempt to split the consignment to evade duty.

B. Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The parts imported by Banke Bihari had the essential character of a complete calculator. The PCB assembly with display and button cell provided the essential characteristics of a finished calculator. As per rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, the parts presented had the essential character of a complete article, justifying the imposition of anti-dumping duty. Reference was made to the decision in Samay Electronics, which supported the application of rule 2(a) for anti-dumping duty.

C. Allegation of Undervaluation:
The Principal Commissioner correctly rejected the declared assessable value of DVB remotes and diodes imported by Banke Bihari. The documents retrieved from Dinesh Udhwani's email indicated higher values for the same goods. The declared values were found to be undervalued to evade customs duty. The subsequent Bills of Entry showed substantially higher values, confirming the undervaluation. The transaction value was re-determined based on the actual values found during the investigation.

D. Differential Duty:
The Principal Commissioner was justified in confirming the differential duty as Banke Bihari had undervalued the imports. The rejection of the declared value and re-assessment based on the actual transaction value was correct.

E. Confiscation and Penalty:
The goods imported by Banke Bihari and Zippo Mobiles were liable to confiscation u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act. The Principal Commissioner found that both companies had actively connived to evade anti-dumping duty by splitting the consignment and filing separate Bills of Entry. Penalties were imposed u/s 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act for submitting incorrect and fabricated invoices. The penalties on individuals associated with the companies were also justified.

Conclusion:
All the appeals were dismissed, and the order of the Principal Commissioner was upheld. The Principal Commissioner was justified in clubbing the consignments, imposing anti-dumping duty, rejecting the declared values, confirming the differential duty, and ordering confiscation and penalties.

---