Appeals rejected; undervaluation and fake retail prices confirmed, with confiscation and penalties under Customs Act sections 111, 112, 114A
CESTAT (AT), New Delhi dismissed the appeals and upheld the impugned order confirming customs duty demand for evasion through undervaluation and mis-declaration of Retail Sale Price, resulting in underpayment of additional duty of customs. The Tribunal held that despite adequate opportunity, including specific time to collect relied upon documents, file reply, and attend multiple personal hearings, the appellants consistently failed to cooperate or substantiate alleged violation of natural justice. On merits, investigation records and proprietors' statements established undervaluation and higher actual sale prices. Confiscation under section 111, redemption fine, and imposition of penalties under sections 114A and 112 of the Customs Act were affirmed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
(1) Whether the adjudication proceedings suffered from violation of principles of natural justice, including non-supply of relied upon documents, denial of adequate opportunity of hearing and cross-examination, and non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority.
(2) Whether the findings of undervaluation of transaction value through use of dual invoices and evasion of basic customs duty were factually and legally sustainable.
(3) Whether the findings of mis-declaration and undervaluation of retail sale price leading to evasion of additional duty of customs (on RSP basis) were sustainable.
(4) Whether confiscation of goods under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of redemption fine under section 125, recovery of duty with interest under section 28 read with section 28AB, and imposition of penalties under sections 114A and 112 were valid and called for interference.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (1): Alleged violation of principles of natural justice and non-application of mind
Interpretation and reasoning
(a) The Tribunal noted that in an earlier round, when the appellants pleaded non-supply of relied upon documents (RUDs), they were expressly directed to collect the RUDs within two months and thereafter file their reply before the adjudicating authority within 45 days, with a corresponding direction to the Commissioner to pass a reasoned order.
(b) Despite repeated reminders from the Department, the appellants collected the RUDs only on 20.01.2012, i.e., nearly seven months after the Tribunal's order, and even thereafter did not file a substantive reply within the time but only an "interim reply" seeking more documents.
(c) The Department informed the appellants' counsel telephonically and through letters dated 12.04.2012 and 27.04.2012 to collect the further documents sought, but the appellants neither collected those documents nor filed any complete reply.
(d) The Commissioner fixed three personal hearings on 15.03.2012, 09.05.2012 and 16.05.2012. No one appeared on any of these dates and no written or oral submissions were made.
(e) In these circumstances, the Commissioner proceeded to adjudicate on the basis of the records and materials available and passed the impugned order. The Tribunal held that adequate and repeated opportunities were afforded, which the appellants chose not to avail.
(f) The Tribunal further recorded that even in the appellate proceedings, the appellants failed to comply with pre-deposit directions, leading to dismissal of the appeals; that, after restoration, they again did not appear; and that, even after a final opportunity with a specific indication that it would be the last, they remained absent. This conduct was treated as indicative of lack of diligence rather than any denial of natural justice.
(g) The allegation that the findings were "perverse" or that there was "non-application of mind" was not substantiated by any specific material in the appeals, and the Tribunal found no such infirmity in the impugned order upon perusal of the record.
(h) The contention that RUDs and documents obtained from foreign sources, being photocopies without signatures of exporters or customs officers, vitiated the proceedings was not accepted, as the Tribunal found no basis in the record to treat such materials as unreliable in the absence of any rebuttal or evidence from the appellants, who failed to contest them despite repeated opportunities.
Conclusions
(i) There was no violation of principles of natural justice; sufficient opportunity was afforded and not availed by the appellants.
(j) The plea of denial of cross-examination and opportunity to rebut was rejected, the appellants having themselves defaulted in participating in the proceedings.
(k) The impugned order was found to be reasoned and based on the material on record, and not vitiated by perversity or non-application of mind.
Issue (2): Undervaluation of transaction value and evasion of basic customs duty
Interpretation and reasoning
(a) The Tribunal recorded that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence gathered specific evidence that the appellants were importing goods using dual invoicing: a lower-value invoice "for customs purpose" and a higher-value invoice representing the actual transaction value.
(b) Reference was made to an e-mail dated 29.12.2003 wherein the proprietor of the appellant concerns requested the overseas supplier to issue an invoice at one-fourth of the actual value "for customs purpose." In response, the supplier issued two invoices: one reflecting the actual price (e.g. Euro 13,155) and a second at the reduced amount (e.g. Euro 2,790), the latter being used at the time of filing the Bill of Entry.
(c) The Tribunal found that the Basic Customs Duty was payable on the actual transaction value, and that the appellants' act of using artificially lowered invoices at the time of import clearly constituted undervaluation with intent to evade duty.
(d) Investigation by DRI, including through its overseas network, yielded the actual invoices and associated records, which formed the basis of the differential duty demand in the show cause notice and its confirmation in the impugned order.
(e) In the absence of any rebuttal, explanation, or evidence from the appellants, the Tribunal accepted the Department's case of deliberate undervaluation as duly established by direct evidence.
Conclusions
(f) The finding that the appellants had undervalued the imported goods by using lower-value invoices "for customs purposes" was upheld.
(g) The demand of basic customs duty on the basis of the actual transaction value as established through investigation was held to be correct and sustainable.
Issue (3): Mis-declaration and undervaluation of Retail Sale Price and evasion of additional duty of customs
Interpretation and reasoning
(a) The Tribunal noted that the additional duty of customs on the goods in question was chargeable with reference to the Retail Sale Price (RSP) with permissible abatement.
(b) Investigation revealed that the appellants were declaring a much lower RSP in the Bills of Entry than the actual selling price in the domestic market. An illustrative instance cited was a Plasma TV model imported with a declared RSP of Rs. 3.60 lakhs but sold at Rs. 10.95 lakhs.
(c) Multiple instances of such RSP mis-declarations were detected during searches. Records of actual sales and price realizations, along with statements of the proprietors, corroborated that the declared RSPs were suppressed, leading to evasion of additional duty of customs.
(d) The Tribunal treated these materials as cogent and direct evidence of deliberate mis-declaration of RSP, particularly as there was no rebuttal or contrary evidence tendered by the appellants despite repeated opportunities.
Conclusions
(e) The finding of systematic mis-declaration of RSP by the appellants was affirmed.
(f) The consequential differential demand of additional duty of customs, computed on the basis of correct RSPs established from the investigation, was held to be legally valid and rightly confirmed.
Issue (4): Validity of confiscation, redemption fine, interest and penalties under sections 111, 125, 28, 28AB, 114A and 112
Interpretation and reasoning
(a) On the basis of the established undervaluation of transaction value and mis-declaration of RSP, the Tribunal held that the imported goods were liable to confiscation under section 111(d) and section 111(m) read with section 118 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(b) The order of confiscation of seized goods valued at the amount specified in the impugned order, coupled with an option to redeem on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs under section 125, along with the corresponding customs duty of Rs. 9,99,513/- under section 125(2), was found to be proper and justified.
(c) The demands of duty under section 28 of the Customs Act against the respective concerns, as detailed in the impugned order, including appropriation of amounts voluntarily paid, were upheld as correctly quantified on the basis of the evidence of undervaluation and mis-declaration.
(d) Liability to pay interest on the duty demanded under section 28AB was affirmed as a statutory consequence once duty evasion was established.
(e) Penalties equivalent to the duty demanded under section 114A were upheld in view of the deliberate and established nature of undervaluation and mis-declaration with intent to evade duty.
(f) Personal penalty imposed under section 112 on the individual proprietor controlling the importing entities was also upheld, as the evidence showed his direct involvement in arranging dual invoices and mis-declared RSPs.
Conclusions
(g) Confiscation of goods under section 111, imposition of redemption fine under section 125, confirmation of duty demands with interest under sections 28 and 28AB, and penalties under sections 114A and 112 were found to be legal, proper, and calling for no interference.
(h) The impugned order was upheld in its entirety and all appeals were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
