TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 25.07.2024 impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj insofar as it imposed penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the appellant under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 Act. The impugned order decided the proposals made in the show cause notice SCN dated 04.08.2023 issued to four noticees including the appellant. The other three noticees were M/s Exclusive Motors P. Ltd., New Delhi Exclusive Motors the dealer of M/s Bentley Motors manufactured by the appellant, Shri Satya Prakash Bagla, Managing Director of Exclusive Motors and Shri Sanket Anand, National Sales Manager of Exclusive Motors. In the impugned order, the Commissioner ordered the value of the cars imported by Exclusive Motors to be adjus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....along with the other appeals and was, therefore, not disposed of along with them. 3. We have heard Shri Sujit Ghosh, assisted by Shri Nikhil Varshney, Ms. Rashi Jeph and Ms. Tanya Shukla, learned counsels for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar and Shri Girijesh Kumar, learned authorized representatives for the Revenue and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appeals of the main noticee Exclusive Motors and the other noticees were already allowed setting aside the impugned order, this appeal filed by the appellant must also be allowed on this ground alone. However, he submits that from a perusal of the Final Order of this Tribunal, it is evident that the appeals of Exclusive Motors, Shri S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A and impose penalties. These proposals in the SCN were confirmed by the Commissioner through the impugned order. The impugned order was set aside by this Tribunal's Final Order dated 18.11.2024 in the appeals filed by Exclusive Motors, Shri Sanket Anand and Shri Satya Prakash Bagla. 6. Submissions on behalf of the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :- (i) The final order dated 18.11.2024 set aside the impugned order in the appeals filed by the three other appellants holding that the declared price is, by default, not only the transaction value but also, unless established to the contrary, the price for delivery at the time and place of importation. The onus for establishing the contrar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tely by E-mail. This arrangement was mis-represented by Exclusive Motors before this Tribunal to say that no invoices were ever issued. Learned counsel submitted printouts of all the supplementary invoices issued by it and the corresponding airway bills along with a statement (Annexure A-8) with an application seeking permission to place additional documents on record. This statement gives the chassis number, mode of transport details of original invoices and date and date of the supplementary invoice and the airway bill and debit. (vi) All these invoices were also sent by the appellant to the investigating agency during investigation by E-mail and they were part of the SCN. This Tribunal, in final order dated 18.11.2024, held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised by the appellant but payments were also received through account adjustment. Therefore, no separate remittance was made by Exclusive Motors which was misrepresented by Exclusive Motors as if no payments were made. (ix) The SCN relied on the values declared by M/s Bentley before the HMRC (UK Customs) and compared them with the values declared in the invoices and in the Bills of Entry by Exclusive Motors. Since HMRC requires values to be declared on FOB terms and the values declared before the HMRC were the same as in the main invoices, the show cause notice proceeded on the premise that the main invoices actually reflected the FOB values and the cost of freight as per the supplementary invoices as well as transit insurance on n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht amount for which it issued supplementary invoices to Exclusive Motors. (xiii) As an exporter, the appellant had no role whatsoever in the declarations made by Exclusive Motors before Indian Customs. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the appellant can be held liable to penalty under section 112 (a) (ii). (xiv) The appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside insofar as it imposed penalty on the appellant. Submissions of learned authorized representatives. 7. Learned authorized representatives vehemently supported the impugned order and asserted that it calls for no interference as the appellant had issued invoices for a lower value and then issued supplementary invoices which resulted in unde....