TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 108 statement admitting undervaluation scheme held valid evidence against importer challenging customs valuation</h1> <h3>Shri T.N. Malhotra and M/s. S.R. Bristle Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi</h3> Shri T.N. Malhotra and M/s. S.R. Bristle Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Voluntariness of the statement recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act.2. Admissibility of documentary evidence.3. Allegations of undervaluation.4. Invocation of extended period of limitation including IGST.5. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act.6. Imposition of penalty u/s 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act.7. Valuation of past imports.Summary:1. Voluntariness of the statement recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act:The Tribunal examined whether the statements made by Shri T.N. Malhotra were voluntary or coerced. It concluded that the statements were voluntary, true, and not retracted at any stage. The Tribunal relied on precedents that statements made under Section 108 are admissible if made voluntarily.2. Admissibility of documentary evidence:The Tribunal upheld the admissibility of email and WeChat printouts retrieved by Shri T.N. Malhotra, supported by his voluntary statements. The Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kishan Manjibhai Gadesriya, which affirmed the admissibility of such electronic evidence without the need for a certificate u/s 138C(4) of the Act.3. Allegations of undervaluation:The Tribunal found that the appellant had under-invoiced the goods with the help of overseas suppliers, as admitted by Shri T.N. Malhotra. The undervaluation was corroborated by documentary evidence retrieved from emails and WeChat. The Tribunal upheld the re-determination of value under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, based on parallel invoices.4. Invocation of extended period of limitation including IGST:The Tribunal held that the extended period of five years u/s 28(4) of the Act was applicable due to the appellant's wilful suppression of the actual transaction value. The demand for short payment of IGST was also upheld under the extended period of limitation.5. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act:The Tribunal concluded that the goods were liable for confiscation u/s 111(m) of the Act due to the incorrect declaration of value, which was admitted by the appellant.6. Imposition of penalty u/s 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act:The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on the appellant company and Shri T.N. Malhotra under Sections 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Act for wilful suppression and misstatement of the actual value.7. Valuation of past imports:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order concerning past consignments due to the absence of requisite documents. It remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision and a speaking order. The Tribunal confirmed the demand and penalty for the current five bills of entry.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the appellant company was partly allowed in respect of past consignments, while the demand and penalty for the current five bills of entry were confirmed. The appeal by Shri T.N. Malhotra against the imposition of penalty was dismissed.
TaxTMI 