CESTAT sets aside anti-dumping duty imposed using extended limitation period under section 28(4) without evidence of deliberate suppression

CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the order imposing anti-dumping duty using extended limitation period under section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal held that incorrect valuation alone without evidence of deliberate suppression cannot invoke extended limitation period. Relying on SC precedent in Commissioner vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., the tribunal found appellant's valuation declaration was bonafide despite being ultimately incorrect. Penalties under sections 112 and 114AA on director were also set aside as there was no willful mis-declaration. Confiscation of goods was deemed unjustified.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal revolve around the validity of the invocation of the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, for recovery of alleged anti-dumping duty; the correctness of the re-determination of assessable value of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules; the liability of confiscation and imposition of penalty under various provisions of the Customs Act; and the applicability of penalty provisions to the appellant company and its director for alleged mis-declaration of value.

The principal issue is whether the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could be invoked in the facts of the case, which requires establishing that the duty was not levied or paid due to collusion, willful mis-statement, or suppression of facts by the importer or its agent. Related issues include whether there was suppression or mis-declaration of value with intent to evade anti-dumping duty, and consequentially, whether confiscation and penalties under sections 111(m), 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act were justified.

Regarding the invocation of the extended limitation period under section 28(4), the Tribunal examined the statutory framework. Section 28(1) mandates issuance of a show cause notice within one year from the relevant date for recovery of duties not levied or paid, except where there is collusion, willful mis-statement, or suppression of facts, in which case section 28(4) extends the limitation to five years. The Tribunal emphasized that mere incorrect valuation or difference of opinion does not suffice to invoke the extended period; there must be deliberate intent to evade duty. The show cause notice must explicitly allege such intent, and the adjudicating authority must examine the assessee's reply addressing these allegations.

In this case, the imported goods were melamine tableware, subject to anti-dumping duty notifications that imposed duty when the landed value was below a specified threshold. The appellant declared a higher FOB price than the threshold, resulting in no anti-dumping duty liability. The department alleged that this was a deliberate overvaluation to evade duty. However, the appellant filed Bills of Entry containing full particulars, including the relevant anti-dumping duty notifications, and the goods were examined and cleared by customs officers, whose names and signatures appeared on the Bills of Entry. Furthermore, the department conducted a search on the appellant's premises and recorded statements of the director in 2015, after which no further inquiry or evidence emerged before issuance of the show cause notice in 2018.

The Tribunal found that since the department was aware of all relevant facts by the time of the search and statements in 2015, the issuance of the show cause notice after two and a half years without any new material was unjustified to invoke the extended limitation. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice's allegation of deliberate overvaluation was based on assumptions and did not amount to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The appellant's bona fide belief in the correctness of its valuation was supported by the fact that the goods were examined and cleared by customs officers, and that the appellant disclosed the applicable anti-dumping duty notification in the Bills of Entry.

The Tribunal relied on authoritative precedents, including a Supreme Court decision holding that if an assessee bona fide believes it is correctly discharging duty, a later judicial finding of error does not render the belief mala fide or justify invocation of extended limitation. The Tribunal also referred to a Division Bench decision emphasizing that suppression of facts requires mens rea, and mere difference of opinion or erroneous self-assessment does not constitute willful suppression. The Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) was incorrectly invoked.

On the question of penalty and confiscation, the department's case was based on the alleged mis-declaration of value to evade duty. The Tribunal found that since there was no suppression or mis-declaration with intent, penalties under sections 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act could not be imposed either on the appellant company or its director. The Tribunal held that a bona fide but incorrect declaration does not attract penal consequences. Similarly, confiscation under section 111(m) was not justified as the goods were not liable to confiscation in the absence of suppression or evasion.

The Tribunal also examined the department's re-determination of assessable value under rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, which was challenged by the appellant. However, the principal focus of the judgment was on the limitation and penalty issues, and the Tribunal's conclusion on the extended limitation period undermined the basis for re-determination and consequential demands.

In summary, the Tribunal held that:

• The extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked merely on the basis of an alleged incorrect valuation without concrete evidence of deliberate suppression or evasion.
• The appellant's declaration was bona fide, supported by examination and clearance by customs officers, and disclosure of applicable anti-dumping notifications.
• The delay in issuance of the show cause notice after the department's knowledge of all facts negated the applicability of extended limitation.
• Penalties under sections 112, 114A, and 114AA could not be imposed in the absence of willful mis-declaration or suppression.
• Confiscation of goods was not justified as the goods were not liable to confiscation under the circumstances.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

Key verbatim excerpts preserving crucial legal reasoning include:

"It has to be remembered that mere suppression of facts is not enough. There has to be a deliberate attempt to evade payment of customs duty. The show cause notice must specifically deal with this aspect and the adjudicating authority is also obliged to examine this aspect in the light of the facts stated by the assessee in reply to the show cause notice."

"Merely because the value declared by the appellant has not been found to be correct, it cannot be said that the appellant had suppressed material facts from the department."

"We are in full agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that during the period in dispute it was holding a bona fide belief that it was correctly discharging its duty liability. The mere fact that the belief was ultimately found to be wrong by the judgment of this Court does not render such belief of the assessee a mala fide belief particularly when such a belief was emanating from the view taken by a Division Bench of Tribunal."

"Suppression of facts has also been held through a series of judicial pronouncements to mean not mere omission but an act of suppression with an intent. In other words, without an intent being established, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked."

"As there has been no mis-declaration of the value of goods by the appellant, penalty under section 114A and section 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act could not have been imposed on the appellant."

"Penalty under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act could not, therefore, have been imposed upon Arjinder Singh Gulati."

---