TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Once the ETAs is found fake, the argument put forth by the learned Counsel of the appellants that country of manufacture was not relevant and not required to be mentioned on ETA holds no ground. The argument could have some validity only when the ETA had been genuine and there was only dispute of country of manufacture or origin. Here country of manufacture is not in the dispute but there is a violation of relevant notification issued by the Ministry of Telecommunication No. GSR 45(E) dated 28/01/2005 which requires the importer to produce a valid ETA issued by the Ministry of Telecommunication. Once it is on record that the ETA was not issued by the Ministry of Telecommunication and was fake, all other arguments that country of origin was not required on ETA etc. become meaningless." 3. It is the submission that the above observations were not consistent with the facts. They had imported Fitbits whose import is said to require an Equipment Type Approval [ETA] from the Department of Telecommunications [DOT]. They imported Fitbits under 30 Bills of Entry using 16 ETAs. Of these only two ETAs dated 24.11.2015 and 1.12.2015 which were fake. The goods imported using these two fake E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi held by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Customs. Paragraph 2 (ii) of these minutes clarify the position as follows: "(ii) Requirement of different ETAs for the same item manufactured in different countries by the same brand owner company. In this regard, example of M/s Apple India Private Limited was cited, In this case, M/s. Apple India Private Limited filed a Bill of Entry for import of Smart Watches having Bluetooth facility declaring country of origin of the subject goods as China while the column 3 of the ETA produced by them indicates the name of the manufacturer to be Apple Inc, USA. Accordingly, a clarification was sought by the Customs from the Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication & IT, Government of India, WPC Wing whether clearance of the goods against such an ETA certificate could be allowed. In reply dated 7.11.2016 received from D. Jha, Sr. Deputy Wireless Advisor (C) it was intimated that since the manufacturer M/s Apple Inc, China and M/s Apple Inc, USA are different they need to apply for a fresh ETA from RLO (NR), WPC Wing, New Delhi. It was pointed out by representatives from the trade that owing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on import of the impugned goods and, therefore, they are not liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act and no penalty is liable to be imposed upon the appellant. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Commissioner Of Customs (ACC & Import), Mumbai versus Reliance Communication Ltd. 2014 (301) E.L.T. 571 (Tri- Mumbai); • Dawar Radios versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2003 (160) E.L.T. 844 (Tri-Mumbai) 9. The last submission is that there are no findings on the penalty imposed on the applicant under Section 112 (a) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel that Section 112 (a) (ii) provides for imposition of penalty not exceeding 10% of the duty sought to be evaded or Rs. 5,000 whichever is higher. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, it has been prayed that the Final Order may be recalled and modified to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and the mistakes as pointed out above be rectified with consequential reliefs. 11. Learned Authorised Representative of the Department opposed the application. He submitted that an application for Rectification of Mistakes (R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in. The two fake ETAs accounted for goods worth Rs. 1,26,69,14/- while the remaining 14 FTAs accounted for goods worth Rs. 1,39,45,581/-. We find that this mistake needs to be rectified in the Final Order. 16. The second alleged mistake is that they had obtained fresh ETAs in lieu of the fake ones which they had initially submitted, therefore, the goods imported were not liable for confiscation. We find that this submission was made and was recorded in paragraph 3 and the decision was recorded in paragraph 7 of the Final order as follows: "3........Further argued that the appellant is in no way responsible or involved with the procurement of fake ETAs and as soon as the appellant came to know that the ETAs procured by the consultant of Fitbit Inc. USA were not genuine, they immediately requested Fitbit USA to obtain fresh ETAs which were duly obtained and submitted by the appellant before the Department and the learned Commissioner after considering fresh ETAs has held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act as those were not imported contrary to any prohibition imposed under the Customs Act or any other law for the time be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....WPC authorities are valid since there exists no requirement to obtain different ETAs for identical goods manufactured in different countries under the same brand name........" "4. On the other hand the learned DR has argued that the goods were liable to confiscation, after the ETA certificates have been found to be fake and element of mens-rea is not an essential ingredient for confiscation and imposition of penalty for contravention of provisions of a civil act. He also argued that as per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 paragraph 2.03, all the domestic Laws/ Rules/ Orders/ Regulations/ Technical specifications/ environmental / safety and health norms applicable to domestically produced goods shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to imports unless specifically exempt.........." 20. After considering both arguments, it was held in the Final Order that the goods were liable for confiscation and the appellant was liable to penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. Thus, we find that there no mistake apparent on record to be rectified. 21. We have also examined the assertion of the learned Counsel that there is no restriction or prohibition on import of the goods in ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 framed under the FTDR Act is a law which all imports and exports have to comply with it. There are several paragraphs in this policy. The learned Counsel draws attention to ITC (HS) classification which is framed under paragraph 2.01 of the FTP and argues that import of the goods was not restricted or prohibited. The allegation of the Revenue is that there is violation of paragraph 2.03. These two paragraphs read as under: "2.01 Exports and Imports - 'Free', unless regulated (a) Exports and Imports shall be 'Free' except when regulated by way of 'prohibition', 'restriction' or 'exclusive trading through State Trading Enterprises (STEs)' as laid down in Indian Trade Classification (Harmonized System) [ITC (HS)] of Exports and Imports. The list of 'Prohibited', 'Restricted', and STE items can be viewed by clicking on 'Downloads' at http://dgft.gov.in (b) Further, there are some items which are 'free' for import/export, but subject to conditions stipulated in other Acts or in law for the time being in force." "2.03 Compliance of Imports with Domestic Laws (a) Domestic Laws/ Rules/ Orders/ Regulations/ technical specifications/ environment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced two fake ETAs. The case laws of Reliance Communications (supra) and Dawar Radios (supra) relied upon by the applicant pertained to a period prior to FTP 2015-20 and it does not appear that the provision relating to 'National Treatment' in the FTPs of the relevant periods were either argued or were considered or discussed. 29. In the present case, the entire case is built upon this National Treatment under paragraph 2.03. Therefore, we find no force in the argument of the applicant that their import was not in violation of any law and hence the imported goods were not liable for confiscation nor were they liable to penalty. 30. The last submission is that there are no findings on the penalty imposed on the applicant under Section 112 (a) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been argued that Section 112 (a) (ii) provides for imposition of penalty not exceeding 10% of the duty sought to be evaded or Rs. 5,000, whichever is higher. 31. We find that the penalty was upheld in the Final Order under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. The impugned order in original does mention Section 112(a) (ii) in the operative part. 32. Section 112 reads as follows: "SECTION 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e highest." 33. It is seen from both the impugned order in original and the Final Order that the allegations by the revenue and arguments by the appellant before the original authority as well as before this Bench during the final hearing was regarding the prohibition or otherwise of the import of the goods in question and NOT regarding evasion of duty or attempt to evade payment of duty. No penalty could have been imposed, therefore, under Section 112 (a) (ii). The allegations made and upheld squarely fall under Section 112 (a) (i). If in the operative part of the impugned order Section 112 (a) (ii) was mentioned instead, in the factual matrix, it cannot be called anything more than a typographical error which will not vitiate the penalty imposed. 34. The argument of the learned Counsel that the penalty cannot be more than the duty sought to be evaded under Section 112(a)(ii) is untenable since there was neither any allegation of attempt to evade payment of duty by the department nor any arguments were made on this point. We therefore, find that there is no force in this argument. The quantum of penalty, however, needs to be reconsidered, since 14 of the 16 ETAs were genuine....