TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The goods were held as liable for confiscation. Since the goods are not available for confiscation, redemption fine has been imposed in lieu of confiscation. Customs Appeal No. 75997 of 2025 has been filed against the same Order-in-Original No. Kol/Cus/Commissioner/Port/Adjn/22/2025 dated 16.06.2025, wherein penalty of Rs.24,54,657/- has been imposed on Shri. Deepak Jindal ( herein after referred as the appellant 2) under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. As both the appeals emanate from the same Order- in-Original, both are taken up together for decision by a common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that The Appellant 1, M/s. Gemini Metal Corporation, is a manufacturer of various types of steel utensils. For this purpose, the Appellant 1 imports diverse steel sheets as raw material. The finished goods are subsequently sold on GST invoices to wholesalers, who then distribute them to retailers. Customs duty on the import of steel comprises of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and Integrated Goods and Services Tax IGST. IGST paid at the time of import is adjustable against the GST liability incurred at the time of sale of the manufactured goods. 2.1. The appellant 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.5. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the demands of duty along with interest and imposition of penalties, both the appellants have filed appeals before this Tribunal. The appellants have contested the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. 3. Appellant 1 submits that the entire demand has been confirmed on the basis of four invoices retrieved from the Phone of Mr. Deepak Jindal. The submission of the appellant1 is that many documents were retrieved from the mobile phones, but the investigation has relied upon four invoices which are unconnected with the appellant's imports. The documents retrieved from the mobile phones includes import by others not connected with the appellant. The appellant 1 submits that he has no business relation with Mr. Deepak Jindal and he doesn't know how Mr. Deepak Jindal got those Invoices. Further, appellant 1 submits that the officers have not followed the procedure prescribed under section 138 C of the Custom act 1962 while retrieving the invoices from the mobile phone. The appellant submits that the mobile phones were not sent for forensic test to any Government Laboratory but the same we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. In is pertinent to mention here that no import documents other than the initial four Bills of Entry were part of the relied upon documents, and there is no material basis upon which the goods related to the remaining Bills of Entry could be compared. 3.3. The appellant 1 submits that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, in an omnibus fashion and without any application of mind, confirmed the demand for all imports over the last five years. This was done without considering the similarity, nature, or quality of the goods, all of which significantly influence the value based on thickness, quality of steel, and other factors. The appellant 1 submits that the Adjudicating Authority lacked any material to justify this across-the-board re-valuation and failed to ascertain whether these Bills of Entry had been previously assessed or re-assessed. The appellant 1 submits that the photocopies of the invoices are demonstrably fake. Notably, the Adjudicating Authority himself admitted in the adjudication order that the data extracted from the phone was fake. Nonetheless, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand based on the purported statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent needs to be presented in full and it cannot be presented in any truncated form. Further, the officers have not followed the procedure prescribed under section 138 C of the Custom act 1962 while retrieving the invoices from the mobile phone. Hence, the four invoices said to be allegedly retrieved from his mobile phone cannot be relied upon as a documentary evidence in this proceedings. Thus, appellant 2 submits that the penalty imposed on him for his role in the alleged offence is not sustainable and prayed for setting aside the same. 5. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. The Ld. A.R. submits that the assessable value adopted by the appellant 1 has been rejected by the adjudicating authority on the basis of invoices showing higher value for the same goods. thus, he supported the demand of differential customs duty on the basis of the invoices retrieved. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 7. We observe that the appellant1 had imported the goods 'Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils' vide the four Bills of Entry. The assessable value declared by the appellant 1 in the said four Bills of Entry were accepted and the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been issued in this case on the basis of four invoices allegedly related to the 4 Bills of entry filed by the appellant 1 for clearance of the goods namely, 'Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils' imported by them. However, we find that the impugned order has confirmed the Customs duty demand in respect of 165 Bills of Entry imported by the Appellant during the last five years, which is legally not permissible. From the impugned order, we find that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of customs duty in respect of all the Bills of Entry without any comparison of goods. We find that no import documents other than the initial four Bills of Entry were part of the relied upon documents, and there is no material basis upon which the goods related to all the Bills of Entry could be compared. Thus, we find that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand customs duty for all imports over the last five years, without considering the similarity, nature, or quality of the goods. We observe that factors such as thickness, quality of steel, and many other factors significantly influence the value of the goods imported. We observe that the Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the appellant 1 company having higher import prices have been retrieved from his mobile phone. However, Appellant 2 has categorically denied that the said invoices were retrieved from his mobile phone. We also observe that the investigation has not found out the sender of the Invoices, if any, to his mobile phone. There is no number from which the alleged invoices were forwarded or sent to his phone. Further, we observe that the officers have not followed the procedure prescribed under section 138 C of the Custom act 1962 while retrieving the invoices from the mobile phone. Thus, we observe that the said invoices allegedly retrieved from his mobile phone cannot be relied upon as a documentary evidence in this proceedings. Thus, we hold that appellant 2 has not committed any offence warranting imposition of penalty as envisaged under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on appellant 2. 9. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) We set aside the demand of differential customs duty confirmed in the impugned order. (ii) We set aside all the penalties imposed against appellant 1 under sections 112(b), 11....