2022 (11) TMI 1285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty, after 15 years of issue of show-cause notice on the Appellant, under Section 112 of the Customs Act against importation by a third party of ATMs and its Controllers for alleged mis-declaration of description and value of goods is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that Appellant Citibank is engaged in carrying on activities of banking services at its various branches located in India and it had purchased 12 numbers of ATMs and 6 ATMS Controllers in July, 1998 from M/s. Philips India. On 11.09.1992 show-cause notice was issued by the then Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai on the allegation that those ATMs and ATMs Controllers were supplied by M/s Philips India to the Appellant after the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....11.2007. Mr. Patel strongly argued, with reference to the judicial decision of Meghmani Organics Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2019 (7) TMI 1409, Siddhi Vinayak Syntex P. Ltd vs. UOI reported in 2017 (3) TMI 1534, Shivkrupa Processors P. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2018 (3) TMI 1701, Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2019-TIOL-1597-HC-MUM-CUS. He also argued that delay of over 15 years in passing the Order-in-Original vitiates the proceedings and there was no evidence available to establish that Appellant had any knowledge about ATMs and ATMs Controllers being supplied by M/s. Philips India had been imported by any company/firm of Mr. Jiten P. Mody, apart from the fact that no specific provision of Section 112 was held to be made out ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... letter dated 17.03.2020 indicates that show-cause notice was issued to the Citybank Appellant, but it was returned by the postal authority as refused by the recipient and the role of Appellants have been specifically stated in the Order-in-Original that refutes the allegation of Appellant that its role/participation has not been indicated in the Order-in-Original. Further, he submitted that these appeals are hopelessly barred by limitations as Order-in-Original was issued in 2007 and appeals have been filed in 2014, after a gap of almost 7 years, for which interference by the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is uncalled for. 5. We have perused the case record. On limitation, this Tribunal had specifically condo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch going by the case record would clearly reveal that a general allegation of abatement against him without a clear finding was only levelled against him for his involvement during clearance of goods from Customs as a Customs broker. 6. In respect of Appellant bank, as could be observed during the course of hearing and from the case record, it is a subsequent purchaser of the goods form M/s. Philips India who had allegedly purchased the imported goods imported by Jiten P. Mody and no complacence is noticeable between the Appellant bank and the said Jiten P. Mody except that in the statement of Mr. Ramamrutham, former Philips India employee, it is stated that they considered the possibility of importing ATMs from Philips Holland to Philip....