TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he instant SCN was issued by Additional Director General, DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit answerable to the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. Shri Hiren Bhagavanji Kalariya, Director of M/s. Shiva Biochem, (hereinafter also referred to as co-applicant-I); (ii) Shri Vipul Laljibhai Bavarva, Director of M/s. Shiva Biochem, (hereinafter also referred to as co-applications-II) and (iii) Shri Narendra Hirjibhai Adroja, Proprietor of M/s. P.N. Enterprise, (hereinafter referred to also as "the co-applicant-III") have also filed their applications for settlement arising out of the instant SCN. The applications were allotted with numbers S.A. Cus/20-24/2017-SC and were allowed to be proceeded with by the Bench on 20-4-2017. 1.3 The SCN demands inter alia differential Customs duty to the tune of Rs. 1,58,67,518/- (Rs. 1,42,38,418/- pertaining to M/s. Shiva Biochem and Rs. 16,29,100/- pertaining to M/s. P.N. Enterprise) and applicable interest thereon. It was also proposed in the SCN to finalise the 4 provisionally assessed Bills of Entry under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, as listed in the Annexure VI (including two live Bills of Entry) to the instant SCN. There is also a proposal i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "Complementary Pet food". In order to confirm the declared description, representative samples were taken for testing under mahazar proceedings dated 8-6-2016. 1.9 The office premises of M/s. Amit Cargo International, Tuticorin, who were handling the Customs clearances on behalf of the applicant-l, was searched on 9-6-2016 in connection with the imports made by the applicant-1. The proprietor of M/s. Amit Cargo International, Shri Ameet K. Dedhia revealed that the entire cargo imported by M/s. Shiva Biochem were being sold in 50 kg. bags to one M/s. GBKAL Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat and the dispatch of the consignments were taken care by him. During the search operation thee-mail correspondence, retrieved from him indicated that the imported goods purchased by M/s. GBKAL Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were animal feed supplement and not Organic Manure Composite Fertilizer, as declared by M/s. Shiva Biochem, in the customs document for import. During the search, the laptop of Shri Ameet K. Dedhia containing several e-mail correspondence along with other incriminating documents were seized under the Customs Act, 1962 under mahazar proceedings dated 9-6-2016. 1.10 Scrutiny of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hirjibhai Adroja on 10-8-2016 further inter alia stated that he joined M/s. GBKAL Overseas (P) Ltd., as a director and he was taking care of documentation and finance of M/s. GBKAL Overseas (P) Ltd., that towards end of 2014, he started the company M/s. P.N. Enterprise as a proprietary concern in his name, as suggested by his brother-in-law, Shri Hiren Kalaria for importing animal feed supplement and started importing animal feed supplement; that during Aug, 2015 his brother-in-law Shri Hiren Kalariya suggested that they could declare the imported 'animal feed supplement' as 'Organic Manure - Composite Fertilizer' which attracts lesser duty; that since, the supplier company was in the name of his co-brother (Shri Vipul Bavarva), Shri Hiran Kalariya arranged documents for the import of animal feed supplement in the name of 'Organic manure - Composite Fertilizer'; that they had imported three consignments of animal feed supplement by declaring the same as 'Organic Manure - Composite Fertilizer' in the name of M/s. P.N. Enterprise and at the end of Oct, 2015, M/s. P.N. Enterprise, which stood in his name, was closed and M/s. Shiva Biochem was started as a partnership firm, with his b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eading 2309 and cleared the consignment on payment of appropriate duty. His brother-in-law, Shri Vipul Bavarava started a company M/s. Filaha International, Dubai; during the course of time he came to know that if the product was declared as "Organic Manure-Composite Fertilizer" under Chapter 3101 at the time of import, the rate of import duty was much less; that since they were raising invoices from his brother-in-laws company viz., M/s. Filaha International, Dubai, he arranged for invoices mentioning the commodity as "Organic Manure - Composite Fertilizer" though it was actually "Protein meal animal feed supplement" supplied by M/s. CAGEMAX and filed the Bill of Entry with Customs under Chapter Heading 3101 and paid lesser duty; that likewise, he had imported two more consignments in the same method from Netherland, in the name of M/s. P.N. Enterprise and evaded customs duty; that due to some financial problems in the company, Shri Narendra, Proprietor, had closed down the firm M/s. P.N. Enterprise; that after closure of the company M/s. P.N. Enterprise, he started M/s. Shiva Biochem (IEC No. 2415005983), which is a partnership firm with Shri Ameet K. Bagthalia as another partner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmed that their imported product was only "Protein meal animal feed supplement" and not "Organic Manure Composite Fertilizer" as declared in the Bills of Entry. He admitted that it was a mistake on their part to have misdeclared the imported goods to avoid payment of higher rate of duty applicable to the product "Protein meal animal feed supplement" imported by them. He assured to pay the differential duty payable for the live consignments as well as the past consignments imported in the name of M/s. P.N. Enterprise and M/s. Shiva Biochem, Rajkot, Gujarat and also paid an amount of Rs. 1 crore as part of differential duty payment on that day itself. 1.17 Statement was recorded from Shri Vipul Bavarva, Director, M/s. GBKAL Overseas, Rajkot and Director in M/s. Shiva Biochem, Rajkot wherein he inter alia stated that he admitted their mistake to have misdeclared the imported goods to avoid payment of higher rate of duty applicable to the product "Protein meal animal feed supplement" imported by them. 1.18 The evidences indicated that M/s. Shiva Biochem had misdeclared the imported goods as "Organic Manure - Composite Fertilizer", whereas the actual imported goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal payment of Rs. 2,35,65,839/- in piecemeal and M/s. P.N. Enterprise, Morbi made a payment of Rs. 16,29,100/- in respect of their live consignments as well as past clearances on various occasions. 1.23 Meanwhile the representative sample drawn from the consignment vide mahazar dated 8-6-2016, were sent to the Quarantine Officer (SR), Animal Quarantine and Certificate Services (AQCS) (SR), Chennai for testing. The quarantine officer (SR) stated vide letter dated 22-7-2016 that the samples forwarded could not be tested as the consignments were not accompanied with Sanitary Import Permit (SIP). The QO further stated that consignments of protein meal animal feed supplement imported vide Bill of Entry No. 5420683, dated 27-5-2016 and 5490477, dated 2-6-2016 imported by the M/s. Shiva Biochem contained meat and bone meal which came under the category of livestock products and categorized the same as high risk commodity. Moreover, the import of the said product could be done only after obtaining a sanitary import permit in advance from the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer's Welfare, New Delhi and Tuticorin Port was not authorized for import of livestock products. The AQCS had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he exemption claim for the goods do not hold any merit and the importer was not eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 106 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 as claimed by the applicant. 1.28 Investigations concluded that : • M/s. Reha International, Dubai and the consigner company M/s. Rehakal owned by Shri Hiren Bhagavanji Kalariya; • M/s. Filaha International, Dubai was owned by Shri Vipul Lalji Bhai Bavarva; • Both Shri Hiren Bhagvanji Kalaria and Shri Vipul Lalji Bhai Bavarva are the Directors in M/s. Shiva Biochem, which indicated that the respective suppliers of M/s. Shiva Biochem i.e. M/s. JHK Pol Sp. Zoo, and previously M/s. Rehakal International and M/s. Filaha International Ltd., Dubai are all companies related to M/s. Shiva Biochem; • M/s. Reha International, M/s. Filaha International, M/s. Rehaka International, Dubai and JHK POL Sp Zoo, Poland were the related companies of M/s. P.N. Enterprise and M/s. Shiva Biochem and the same was suppressed to Customs; • M/s. Jasta, Poland and M/s. CAGEMAX, Netherlands were the actual suppliers of "Protein Meal Animal Feed Supplement' whereas t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mind behind the whole gamut of evasion was Shri Hiren Bhagvanji Kalaria who had conspired to evade payment of duty and he had suppressed the actual import invoices to the customs and to have declared a false and fabricated invoice with misdeclared description, thereby evading duty to the tune of Rs. 1.96 crores; • Shri Vipul Lalji Bhai Bhavara, brother-in-law of Shri Hiren Bhagvanji Kalaria was the director of M/s. Shiva Biochem, Rajkot along with Shri Hiren Kalaria. He was also the director in M/s. GBKAL Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot and taking care of domestic purchase. He was also the owner of M/s. Filaha International Dubai and had specifically admitted to having agreed to import animal feed supplement by misdeclaring the same as "Organic Fertilizer", in order to evade customs duty; • Shri Narendra Hirjibhai Adroja was the proprietor of M/s. P.N. Enterprise, Morbi and Director in M/s. GBKAL Overseas P. Ltd., Rajkot and taking care of finance and documentation. As proprietor of M/s. P.N. Enterprise, Morbi, he had actively involved in the unlawful activity with the guidance of Shri Hiren Bhagvanji Kalaria and misdeclared the description of the imported goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Entry as listed in Annexures-IIIA and IIIB to the SCN, with a total assessable value of Rs. 7,23,81,134/- which were not available for seizure, should not be held liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; vi. the differential duty of Rs. 1,42,38,418/- on the goods imported vide 12 Bills of Entry as listed in Annexure IIIA should not be demanded under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962; vii. the interest on the differential duty demanded in para (vi) above should not be charged and demanded under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962; viii. an amount of Rs. 2,38,25,532/- paid during investigation in respect of the applicant should not be appropriated towards the duty and other liabilities against them; ix. penalty and interest thereon should not be imposed on the applicant under [Section] 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 for suppressing the actual value/documents and thereby evading customs duty, in respect of Bills of Entry listed in Annexures-IIIA; x. penalty should not be imposed on the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h a total assessable value of Rs. 70,38,211/- which were not available for seizure, should not be held liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Notification No. 2666(E), dated 16-10-2014 issued under the Livestock Importation Act, 1898 by Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries), New Delhi and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act; vi. the interest on the differential duty demanded in para (iv) above should not be charged and demanded under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 as applicable during their material period of currency; vii. an amount of Rs. 16,29,100/- paid during investigation should not be appropriated towards the duty liability against them; viii. penalty should not be imposed on the applicant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for suppressing the actual description, value/documents and thereby evading customs duty, for not obtaining valid SIP from Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare prior to import which was mandatory for import, for suppressing the facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012, with applicable customs duty of 20%; • Accordingly, the amount of differential duty has been worked out to Rs. 1,21,05,476/- as detailed in the Exhibit D to the application; • They had already deposited an amount of Rs. 2,74,85,637/- towards total duty payable; • With regard to the goods imported vide 2 live Bills of Entry, which had been proposed to be ordered for re-exploration/destruction, since the import consignment was not accompanied with valid SIP, the applicant submitted that as the goods have been proposed for confiscation and imposition of redemption fine, it was imperative that the goods might not be destroyed and the seized goods might be ordered for re-exportation as proposed in the SCN; • The total amount paid at the time of import and during investigation came to Rs. 2,74,85,637/- and the amount might be adjusted/appropriated against the duty liability of Rs. 1,21,05,476/- and interest liability of Rs. 4,54,620/-. The amount of Rs. 2,38,25,532/- mentioned in para 28(x) of the SCN is not correct; • The provisionally assessed Bills of Entry might be ordered for finalizatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icant in his application dated 3-4-2017 has averred that : • He was partner of M/s. Shiva Biochem from 1-9-2015 to 19-10-2015 and since he is retired as partner of the applicant; • In the show cause notice it was mentioned that he was the Director of the applicant M/s. Shiva Biochem, whereas the fact is that the applicant was not a private limited or limited company but a partnership firm and he was not a Director of M/s. Shiva Biochem; • during the period of dispute he was not a partner of the applicant; • The co-applicant in his application has sought for immunity from prosecution and penalty. 4.2 Shri Vipul Laljibhai Bavarva, partner of M/s. Shiva Biochem in his application dated 3-4-2017 has sought for immunity from prosecution and penalty. Averments of co-applicants of M/s. P.N. Enterprise : 4.3 Shri Narendra Hirjibhai Adroja, Proprietor of M/s. P.N. Enterprise in his application dated 3-4-2017 has sought for immunity from prosecution and penalty proposed in the SCN. Averment of Shri Ameet K. Dedhia, proprietor of M/s. Amit Cargo International, Tuticorin - Co-applicant of M/s. Shiva Biochem and M/s. P.N.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r exemption under Notification No. 12/2012 (Sl. No. 106), because the exemption is for feed additives or pre-mixes only wherein the actual description - "Protein Meal Animal Feed Supplement"- does not come under the category which was substantiated by the investigations carried out with regard to end use of the import product 'Animal Feed supplement'. • From the version of the manufacturer for poultry feed who was regularly purchasing animal feed supplement from M/s. GBKAL (P) Ltd., it was clear that additive/premix were supplied from Medicine companies for improvement and good growth of the birds and the impugned goods 'animal feed supplement" could not be considered as additive or premix. • The strategy of import of protein meal animal feed supplement handled by Shri Hiren Bhagvanji Kalaria, initially in the name of M/s. P.N. Enterprise clearly show his awareness in actual classification during import period; subsequently, due to higher rate of duty, knowingly, he had misdeclared the goods as 'organic manure" to evade from payment of appropriate duty clearly shows that he was well aware of the fact that the actual description attracts higher duty does no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. P.N. Enterprise, Morbi, the jurisdictional Commissioner reported that : the applicant is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012 (Sl. No. 106), for the following reasons; the exemption is eligible for feed additives or pre-mixes only wherein the actual description - "Protein Meal Animal Feed Supplement"- does not come under that category and this has been substantiated by the investigation carried out with regard to end use of the import product 'Animal Feed supplement'; with regard to the contest of the applicant that the goods imported under CTH 2309 90 10 were being finally assessed by the Customs Authorities @ 20.6% adv and not 30.9% adv, as had been proposed in the notice, it is clear that the notification benefit specifically granted in Sl. No. 106 in Notificaiton No. 12/2012-Customs only for feed additive or pre-mixes The CTH 2309 90 10 is a general heading and the duty benefit had not been extended for all the goods specified under the above CTH; The description mentioned in the bills of entry furnished by the applicant were mostly additive and premixes viz., minerals, acidifiers vitamins and hence the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d actively involved in the unlawful activity with the guidance of Shri Hiren Bhagvanji Kalaria and misdeclared the description of the imported goods in three bills of entry with fabricated invoices to hoodwink customs, thereby evaded payment of appropriate customs duty and hence deserve penal action. 6.5 The jurisdictional Commissioner further submitted that : • The single point agenda of the applicant is to evade customs duty and to the effect they had conspired, colluded, fabricated documents and had committed all sorts of offences to achieve their goal with the assistance of co-applicants; • The applicants in their applications had not admitted the full duty liability and requested the Settlement Commission to extend the notification benefits of which they are ineligible; • The applicant had also requested for issuing order for re-export of the impugned goods; • In view of the facts of the case, the applications might be pleased to be dismissed by the Settlement Commission. 6.6 The payment particulars in respect of M/s. Shiva Biochem is furnished below : 1. The amount of customs duty demanded, appropriatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r's report dated 20-6-2017 received in this Registry on 5-7-2017 has submitted that : • The department has taken the rate of duty @ 30.9% whereas the applicant has submitted that the effective rate of duty is 20.6%. The amount of Rs. 39,19,798/- paid at the time of import has not been taken by the department in the working sheet. The amount of interest has been shown as Rs. 7,85,674/- against Rs. 4,54,620/-. • The goods were nomenclated and classified by the Customs and are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Customs (Sl. No. 106). For denial of benefit of the exemption, department has relied on the version of a purchaser of poultry feed from market. The said manufacturer was not purchasing "animal feed supplement" directly from the applicant but from some other traders and the product for which he is commenting cannot be correlated to the product being sold by the applicant. The said manufacturer has also stated that he is mixing some additives in the poultry feed he is purchasing. The said manufacturer is neither an expert on this issue nor any authority to pass such remark/conclusion which has been relied upon by the department to deny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9-2017 has reported that : • The earlier submissions made vide letter dated 6-6-2017 are re-iterated and it was recommended by the Department to dismiss the application filed by them for the reasons that the applicants and co-applicants have not admitted full duty liability and are disputing classification and requested Settlement Commission to extend the notification benefit for which they are ineligible and also requested for issuing orders for re-export of the impugned goods which is beyond the purview of the Settlement Commission. • The applicants and co-applicants are still interpreting the classification and its exemption benefits and have not come forward to accept the duty liability for settlement of the case, it is reiterated that the application may be dismissed and sent back to the adjudicating authority for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962. • The stand taken by the Department with regard to classification as well as calculation of rate of duty is correct which was substantiated in the SCN by incorporating the evidences unearthed during the investigation and admission of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly deposited during the course of investigation and hence there is no dispute in the payments made by the applicants. However, the applicant has to pay the interest amount of Rs. 7,85,674/- as per the calculation sheet furnished by the Department. • In as far as M/s. P.N. Enterprise is concerned, the applicant has contested the same points as filed by M/s. Shiva Biochem. • The applicant, M/s. P.N. Enterprise has not accepted the entire duty liability proposed by the department and disputed the classification. Hence the application may be rejected and sent back for adjudication. In as far as the interest calculation is concerned, the calculation done by the department is correct. • As regards penalty proposals on the co-applicants, viz., Shri Hiren Bhagvanji Kalaria, Ex-Partner of M/s Shiva Biochem, Shri Vipul Laljibhai Bavara, Partner, M/s. Shiva Biochem, Shi Narendra Hirjibhai Adroja, Proprietor, M/s. P.N. Enterprise and Shri Ameet K. Dedhia, Proprietor, M/s. Amit Cargo International, the offence committed by the co-applicants is deliberate and hence it is felt that the persons involved in the offence deserve penal action for the reasons disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed because there was no valid SIP and such goods may be allowed to go out of the country. The request for re-export was made even before issuance of SCN but was not granted. After a lapse of 16 months, the quality of the goods might have deteriorated and it is not known to the applicant whether any foreign buyer will purchase goods or otherwise and whether it will fetch any affordable value or not and this factor may be taken into consideration while imposing any fine and penalty. Record of personal hearing held on 5-10-2017 : 9.1 The case was heard on 5-10-2017. Shri R.C. Prasad, Consultant and authorised representative represented the applicants and Shri A. Murali, SIO, DRI, Tuticorin represented the Department. 9.2 It was submitted by the Learned Consultant that he is entering his appearance on behalf of both M/s. Shiva Biochem and M/s. P.N. Enterprises and their co-applicants; that the allegations in the show cause notice was that they misdeclared the description of the goods imported with a view to evade customs duties and also to circumvent the import licensing requirements; that they fully admit the charges levelled in the show cause notice on bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t revenue and gross violation of statutory provisions. Therefore, they are liable for penalty as the applicant having admitted and paid the customs duty involved is now raising the issue of applicability of customs duty exemption notification which is an afterthought and also involves interpretation of law. Therefore the Hon'ble Settlement Commission may consider rejecting the application; and that the applicant is not entitled for any refund as the excess amount paid by the applicant is relating to the four provisionally assessed bills of entry which are also part of this notice and has to be settled together. 9.6 The Learned Consultant further submitted that the case need not be sent back to the Commissioner and may be decided by the Settlement Commission after taking into account the submissions made by them. Post hearing submissions dated 15-11-2017 of the jurisdictional Commissioner : 10.1 The jurisdictional Commissioner vide C. No. VIII/17/31/2017-SC, dated 15-11-2017 has reported the following : • The applicant has submitted that department ought to have taken some expert's view on this aspect and to counter the version of the referred manufac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts may not be considered as disputing the facts. • The applications deserve to be rejected for the reasons that the applicants and co-applicants have not admitted full duty liability and disputing classification and requesting Settlement Commission to extend the notification benefit for which they are ineligible and also requested for issuing orders for re-export of the impugned goods which is beyond the purview of the Settlement Commission. • The suggestion for re-export/destruction of the impugned import consignment, ineligibility of the exemption benefits for the import goods have already been elaborated by the DRI at the time of hearing on 5-10-2017 before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. • It is submitted that totally 16 Bills of Entry inclusive of two live consignments were taken up for investigation in respect of M/s. Shiva Biochem, Rajkot. Out of the above, 4 Bills of Entry were under provisional assessment (2 live consignments and 2 Bills of Entry pertains to past consignments). As regards, demand of duty, only an amount of Rs. 1,42,38,418/- for the 12 nos. of finally assessed Bills of Entry towards differential duty has been de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the applicant in the same reference letter dated 1-9-2017 may not be taken on record for refund or any other calculation, as it was worked out by clerical error and inadvertently mentioned. • It is reiterated in a nutshell that the importers have misdeclared the actual goods "Protein Meal Animal Feed Supplement" attracting Customs duty of 30.9% as "Organic Manure-Composite Fertilizer" attracting Customs duty of 20.6% with the sole intention of - • Evading payment of appropriate customs duty; • Eluding from obtaining valid Sanitary Import Permit mandatory for the import of Animal Feed Supplement; • Deceiving Customs as Tuticorin port is not an authorized port for import of livestock products. • Further, the points for adopting classification of the import goods and denying the exemption benefits disputed by the applicants were already argued in detail before the Court of Hon'ble Settlement Commission and the arguments may be taken into consideration and the plea of the applicants may be rejected on merits. • As regards penalty proposal in the SCN, the offence committed by the applicants and co-applicant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of 3 nos. of Bills of Entry inclusive of 4 provisionally assessed Bills of Entry Rs. 16,29,100/ - 2. Total amount paid during investigation Rs. 16,29,100/- 3. Total amount demanded in the SCN Rs. 16,29,100/- 4. Interest payable Rs. 2,02,654/-** 5. Differential duty amount (@ 20.6%) accepted by the applicant against the duty liability of 16,29,100/- Rs. 9,48,891/- 6. Interest amount accepted by the applicant against the interest payable Rs. 2,02,654/- Rs. 1,18,039/- 7. Difference between the differential duty demand and the acceptance by the applicant Rs. 6,80,209/- ** The applicant has not paid any amount towards interest during the course of investigation and is yet to be paid. Findings of the Bench 11.1 The Bench has carefully gone through the records of the case, and taken note of the written submissions made on behalf of the main-applicant, co-applicants and the Revenue. Customs duty and interest : 11.2 This is a case where it has been alleged in the SCN that the applicants have misdeclared the imported goods "Protein Feed Animal Supplement" falling under Chapter Heading 2309 90 10 attrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/- for the 2 provisionally cleared Bs/E + Rs. 58,21,125/- for the 2 Bs/E under Seizure) and interest thereof. 11.5 The investigation conducted has also clearly brought out the fact that Shri Hiren Bhavanji Kalariya, Shri Narendra Hirjibhai Adroja along with Shri Vipul Lalji Bhai Bavara (co-brother of Shri Kalariya) set up companies in Dubai, which acted as foreign supplier, created false documents with a view to evade Customs duties and to circumvent the regulatory requirements and port restrictions for the importation. These infractions of the law clearly attracted the penal provisions invoked in the SCN read with the provisions of Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 11.6 The Bench notes that the applicant and the co-applicant have paid the entire differential customs duty demanded during the course of investigation, even before the issue of SCN; however, they are before the Bench with a prayer to extent the benefit of Customs Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Customs, dated 17-3-2012 (Sl. No. 106) which is applicable to 'Feed additives or premixes' falling under CTH 2309 90 10 attracting basic Customs duty of 20%. The evidence gathered during th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iochem vide two live Bills of Entry No. 5420683/27-5-2016 & 5490477/2-6-2016 with a total assessable value of Rs. 2,26,06,310/- were seized on 10-6-2016 . There is a proposal in the SCN as to why the impugned goods mentioned above imported by the vide two Bills of Entry under seizure, i.e. as per Annexure IIIC of SCN should not be ordered for re-exportation/destruction since the import consignment was not accompanied with valid Sanitary Import Permit at the time of import and Tuticorin port was not an authorized port for import of livestock products as per the Notification No. 2666(E), dated 16-10-2014 issued by Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare (Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries), New Delhi discussed earlier. The Quarantine Officer in letter dated 22-7-2016 addressed to the DRI had noted that as the goods imported under the above live consignments come under the category of livestock products and is categorized as high risk commodity, action regarding deportation/destruction at the cost of the importer under intimation to their office. The Bench notes that it is prerequisite that in order to import "Protein Meal Animal Feed Supplement" the main-appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the foregoing discussions, the Bench settles the differential customs duty at Rs. 1,77,44,715/- (Rs. 2,35.65,839/- in respect of all the 16 Bills of Entry minus Rs. 58,21,125/- in respect of the two live Bills of Entry under seizure ordered for re-export) and the interest liability pertaining to 12 Bills of Entry pertaining to past imports as Rs. 7,85,675/- as confirmed by the Commissioner, in addition to the above, the interest liability on the differential customs duty liability of Rs. 35,06,297/- on the finally assessed two Bills of Entry Nos. 4953712, dated 18-4-2016 and 5087378, dated 29-4-2016 is also to be worked out by the applicant. M/s. P.N. Enterprises : 11.12 In the case of M/s. P.N. Enterprises, Morbi, the SCN demands an amount of Rs. 16,29,100/- as the differential Customs duty as listed in Annexure IIB/Annexure V to the SCN. Here also the applicant has admitted duty liability of Rs. 13,69,418/- claiming the exemption of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012. However since the applicability of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 has already been discussed supra and the benefits denied, the Bench is inclined to settle the differen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 18-4- 2016 and 5087378, dated 29-4-16 with an assessable value of Rs. 1,36,16,685/- for home consumption are also confiscated. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench considers it a fit case to release the goods covered under the 2 Bills of Entry on payment redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. Subject to condition that appropriate duty is paid. M/s P.N. Enterprises, Morbi : 11.15 There is a proposal in the impugned show cause notice for confiscation of imported goods with a total assessable value of Rs. 66,03,969/- (as listed in Annexure IIB to the SCN) in respect of three Bills of Entry under Sections 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Bench holds that the mis-declaration of description and other acts of commission/omission on part of the applicant as discussed in detail above, had rendered the goods liable for confiscation under the provisions invoked in the SCN. (d) There is a proposal in the impugned show cause notice for confiscation of imported goods with a total assessable value of Rs. 70,38,211/- (as listed in Annexure IIA to the SCN) in respect of 5 Bills of Entry under Sections 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of the imports made by them and by M/s. Shiva Biochem, Rajkot since its inception. In respect of both the companies, the documents such as invoice, packing list, etc. were fabricated to serve the purposes of misdeclaration of description in connivance with their related foreign suppliers with the intention to evade payment of appropriate higher Customs duty. 11.18 Shri Hiren Bhavanji Kalariya, Director of M/s. Shiva Biochem, Rajkot, (Co- Applicant-I), Shri Vipul Laljibhai Bavara, Director of M/s. Shiva Biochem, Rajkot, (Co-Applicant-II) were in collusion with their related overseas supplier and hatched the entire conspiracy, suppressed actual description of goods to Customs by fabrication of invoices/substitution of fake invoices showing misdeclared description and ultimately evasion of duty. Hence penalty is imposable on both of them as invoked in the SCN. 11.19 Shri Ameet K. Dedhia, CHA in both the cases, (Co-applicant IV and V) was well aware of the offence committed by M/s. Shiva Biochem and M/s. P.N. Enterprises in the misdeclaration of import of illegal importation of consignments and knowingly abetted with them in filing Bills of Entry with fabricated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....62 on the following terms and conditions : i. DUTY : The Additional differential amount of Customs duty in this case is settled at Rs. 1,77,44,715/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy-Seven lakhs Forty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifteen only). The applicant paid an amount of Rs. 2,35,65,839/- as confirmed by the Revenue. An amount of Rs. 1,77,44,715/- is appropriated from out of Rs. 2,35,65,839/- and the same is appropriated and adjusted towards the duty liability and no further liability subsists in this regard. The duty paid on the live consignments under seizure subject to re-export may be considered for refund in accordance with law. ii. INTEREST : The interest liability worked out by the Revenue at Rs. 7,85,675/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Eighty-Five Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy-Five only). This interest liability is only for the duty of Rs. 1,42,38,418/- involved in 12 Bills of Entry (as listed to Annexure III to the SCN). This amount should be adjusted and appropriated from the excess amount paid by the applicant. The interest for the duty liability of Rs. 35,06,297/- to be worked out to the satisf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on Shri Hiren Bhagvanji Katariya, Director, Shiva Biochem, Rajkot - the co-applicant I - under the provisions invoked in the show cause notice and grants immunity to the applicant in excess of the above amount. The penalty should be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order and compliance reported to the jurisdictional Commissioner. vi. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench imposes a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on Shri Vipul Laljibhai Bavarva, Director, Shiva Biochem, Rajkot - the co-applicant II - under the provisions invoked in the show cause notice and grants immunity to the applicant in excess of the above amount. The penalty should be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order and compliance reported to the jurisdictional Commissioner. vii. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench imposes a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on Shri Ameet K. Dedhia, Proprietor of M/s. Amit Cargo International, Tuticorin - the co-applicant V - under the provisions in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h a total assessable value of Rs. 7038,211/- (as listed in Annexure IIA to the SCN) in respect of 5 Bills of Entry under Sections 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Notification No. 2666(E), dated 16-10-2014 issued under the Livestock Importation Act, 1898 by Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare (Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries), New Delhi and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, are liable for confiscation. However, the question of ordering confiscation and imposition of redemption fine do not arise in the instant case as there was no seizure of the impugned goods at any point of time. iv. PENALTY : Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench imposes a penalty of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) on M/s. P.N. Enterprises, Morbi - the main applicant II - under the provisions invoked in the show cause notice and grants immunity to the applicant in excess of the above amount. The penalty should be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this compliance reported to the jurisdictional Commissioner. v. Taking into a....