TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s Madhu Overseas. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 2,25,13,033/- which were related to 17 advance licences and redemption fine of Rs. 55 lakhs was imposed on the appellant M/s Tej Overseas under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in lieu of confiscation. A penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed on the appellant under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962. The imported goods valued at Rs. 9,83,400/- was held to be liable to be confiscated under Section 111(o) and 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962. Since the goods were not available for confiscation a redemption fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was imposed under Section 125, import duty of Rs. 9,83,400/- was confirmed against appellant along with transferee of licence/importer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmation of duty and penalty of Rs. 9,83,400/- he submits that the duty was demanded from the appellant and from M/s Madhu Overseas. There is no provision in law to demand duty jointly from more than one person. Secondly, the appellant is not the importer and no duty can be demanded from them being appellant is transferor of licence, the consequent penalty also should not be imposed. As regards the challenge of overvaluation of the export goods he submits that the partner Shri Gautambhai Patel in his statement recorded had admitted of having made profit of 110%. Therefore, there is no overvaluation of the goods. He placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Nangalia Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2017 9352) ELT 265 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods, we find that the Learned Commissioner in the impugned order after considering the investigation such as statements of various persons recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 came to the conclusion that there is a heavy overvaluation of the export goods in order to obtain advance licences. The relevant finding in para 17 of the impugned order is reproduced below. "17. I find that the value of exported goods has indeed been enhanced abnormally. Shri Dilip Nemichand Pandya, partner of M/s Kankur Lab, has admitted in his statement dated 26/02/98, recorded Unde3r sec. 108 of Customs Act 1962 that the prevailing market price of 1000 tablets was between Rs. 26 to Rs. 40 whereas negotiated price was Rs. 150. He has also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi reported in ELT at 2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.) where Hon ble Supreme Court has held that in cases where the export value is not correctly stated but there is international over invoicing for some other purpose, that is to say not mentioning true sale consideration of the goods, then it would amount to violation of the conditions for import/export of the goods. The purpose may be money laundering or money transaction. In any case, over invoicing of the export goods would result in illegal/irregular transactions in foreign currency. .. If the goods are easily available in the market, then it would be difficult to arrive at the conclusion that a foreign buyer a prudent businessman would pay ten times ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....@ 20% under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 9,83,400/- under section 114A upon the appellant, we find that the appellant is not importer of the goods. They are the transferor of the advance licences to Madhu Overseas. Duty cannot be confirmed against transferor of the licence as the statute permits to demand duty only from the importer. Section 28 was amended with effect from 28/05/2012 according to which the transferor was also made liable for payment of duty as transferor of the licences. However, the present case pertains to the period 1995 during which there was no provision to recover duty from the transferor of the licence. Accordingly, duty demand and consequent interest and penalty confirmed ag....