2017 (4) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Kishor Chand Katoch, Rajendra Shrivastav,Dinesh Lekhak and Pradeep Kumar against confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. argued against the demand of duty and imposition penalty for clearance of empty drums from their unit located in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). Ld. Counsel informed that they were clearing waste packing material consisting of empty drumps from their unit located at SEZ by filing Bills of entry. In the said Bill of Entry, the value of the said material was being fixed at Rs. 6/- per kg. The said value was fixed by Custom. However, the price at which they were selling those drums were higher than th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods covered by this Bill of entry." He argued that said declaration is meant for only the case where the appellant declares the value of goods and not for the case where the value is fixed by the Custom. He argued that it was open for the Custom to demand and enquire about actual sale price of the gods. Therefore, it is not their fault. He argued that  when the assessment at Rs. 6/- per kg was prevalent practice since long and during investigation itself, the DRI had enquired consignment and it was found that the said practice started way back in 1990 when the price was fixed at Rs. 5/- per kg. by KASEZ - Custom. 3. He further argued that demand could not have been raised under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 but should have bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....same. The Bills of Entry were assessed by Revenue and it was open for the Revenue to check the value at which the goods were being sold. Therefore, there is obvious fault at the end of Custom also. 8. However, it is seen that on the Bills of Entry the appellants have given the following declaration " Declaration to be signed by the Custom House Agent 1. I/We declare that he contents of this Bill of Entry for goods exported against Bill of Lading No... dt....are in accordance with the Invoice No.....dated.... and other documents presented herewith. 2. I/We declare that I/We have not received any other document or information showing a different price value, uantiy or description of the said goods and that if at any time hereafter I/We....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lls of Entry produced by the ld. Counsel during hearing show that in most of the Bills of Entry, column regarding invoice value has been left blank. However, in some of the Bills of Entry in the column regarding invoice value, a value calculated as per the rate approved by Custom has been mentioned. All these facts point to a clear mis-declaration. Leaving column of invoice value blank, failure to mention invoice number and declaration is also suppression. In these circumstances, we find that there is a clear case of suppression and misdeclaration and therefore, the extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked. 9. The next argument raised by the appellant is that Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked in such cases....