TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 thereby evading substantial customs duty, investigations in respect of one consignment declared as Fruit Grape Guard packaging paper in sheet form coated with sodium meta bi sulphite was conducted. The consignment was detained and examined Samples were drawn from the said consignment for testing whether the paper was coated with Sodium Meta Bi Sulphite as declared by the importer in the B/E. The test report of the Custom House laboratory stated that the sample answered the test for Sulphite of Sodium; sample did not show any visible coating; regarding Sodium Meta Bi Sulphite due to lack of testing facilities for micro analysis in the laboratory it was not possible to state whether sample contained Sodium Meta Bi Sulphite. In the view of the inconclusive test report from New Custom House Laboratory another representative sealed sample, drawn during the examination, was forwarded by SIIB(I) to Central Revenue Chemical Laboratory (CRCL) Pusa, New Delhi for the same test. The test at CRCL confirmed that the sample was free from Sodium Meta Bi Sulphite. In other words, in both these reports it was confirmed that Sodium Meta Bi Sulphite was not pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-2005 24.80 317511.58 104606.00 2 568881/16-5-2005 22.29 285391.72 94024.00 3 569345/17-5-2005 22.29 285391.72 94024.00 4 576535/9-6-2005 25.38 308054.19 106565.00 5 576536/9-6-2005 26.57 322498.02 111562.00 6 584232/6-7-2055 48.86 594403.89 205622.00 7 584233/6-7-2005 15.97 194306.57 67216.00 TOTAL: 186.16 2307557.69 783619.00 2.5 The applicant vide letter dated 20-6-05 expressed willingness to clear the goods at Sr. No. 1 to 5 above, on normal tariff rate of duty without availing any duty exemption in view of the test report of the sample drawn from the goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 567313 dated 10-5-05 as at Sr. No. 1 above. In view of the importer's request the seized goods were provisionally released by the Department on payment of normal tariff rate of duty, Bank Guarantee of Rs. 6 lakh and Bond for full value of the goods. 2.6 The Test Reports of the samples drawn from the consignments covered vide Bill of Entry No. 569345 dated 17-5-05, 584232 dated 6-7-05 & 854233 dated 6-7-05 were received from the Custom House Laboratory vide lett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olving 35 Bills of Entry of which the applicant has admitted duty liability in respect of only 2 Bills of Entry (524671/22-12-2004 & 565162/3-5-2005 Sr. No. 5 & 31 to Annexure-A to Show Cause Notice respectively) involving duty liability of Rs. 1,92,793/- The second part are the present imports of the applicant involving 7 Bills of Entry wherein the applicant has admitted the entire duty liability of Rs. 7,83,619/-. 8. The ld. Representative submitted that the applicant had not admitted the duty liability in respect of past imports involving 33 Bill of Entry for the following reasons :- (i) Only the two Bills of Entry (Sr. Nos. 5 & 31 to Annexure A to Show Cause Notice) for which the applicant had admitted the duty liability were assessed provisionally and the Test bonds were taken. Even out of the same the Bill of Entry at Sr. No. 5 was assessed finally and the test bond cancelled and returned to the applicant. Even though the assessment of the said Bill of Entry at Sr. No. 5 cannot be reopened without reviewing the assessment order, the applicant in sprit of settlement was admitting the duty liability. (ii) The remaini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assistant Commissioner, Ashok Kumar, Superintendent and Niranjan Sawal, Appraising Officer from Commissionerate of Customs (Imports), New Customs House, Mumbai. The Revenue opposed the applicants claim in reduction of duty demanded in the Show Cause Notice and submitted as under :- (i) The co-applicant had roped in a jobless laborer and lured him to be the proprietor of the applicant firm. This fact itself shows the co-applicant was intending to do some mischief. (ii) The co-applicant had confessed in his statement that the paper imported was nothing but packaging tissue paper. Though he had retracted his statement before the Hon'ble Magistrate, he had again retracted the retraction and confirmed his original statement before the Hon'ble Magistrate. (iii) In the normal course of examination of goods, imported regularly by an importer, the samples are not drawn from each and every consignment cleared by Customs. The samples are normally drawn once in six months or after every 10-15 consignments for testing. Because of this reason, samples of all the consignments cleared in the past by the applicant were not drawn ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were drawn and no Test Reports were available and therefore there is no misdeclaration as the goods were cleared by Customs This is in spite of the fact that there are admission statements from the so called proprietor, Shri Dilip Patel-the main person, the buyers of the goods S/Shri Ashok Palan, Manish Patel and Ramesh Patel, the payment of Rs. 39.5 lacs as the duty liability accepted before the Hon'ble Addl. CMM Court at the time of the remand proceedings of Shri Dilip Patel. The proprietor Shri Subash Choudhary was admittedly a front man posing to be proprietor of the applicant company, set up actually by Shri Dilip Patel and his brothers S/Shri Manish Patel and Ramesh Patel and all conspiring to import and sell the goods in the market for gain. S/Shri Ramesh Patel and Manish Patel have in the name of this firm purchased the goods on import and sold in the market. It is very clear that the whole operation was masterminded by the brothers to gain monetarily out of the mis-declaration. Inspite of all this evidence, for want of testing of the past imports, the duty liability to the same is not being admitted. As per Customs norms and procedures, all import/export consignments are ....