TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kash Deepak Kumar and is aggrieved vide orders of confiscation and penalty imposed upon him along with that on the co-appellants vide Order-in-Original No. 16/Cus/CC(P)/WB/2013 dated 31st March 2013. It is stated that the appellant, Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal entered into an agreement with Bangladesh Agro Growers and Processors Ltd., Bagerhat, Bangladesh for purchase and import of 2000 Metric Ton of Betel Nuts claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 105/99-Cus dated 08/08/1999 i.e. import under SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA). It is their case that in terms of the said agreement 545.74 MT (gross)/545.73 MT (net) of Betel Nuts in six consignments were imported during the period June 15, 2009 to July 2, 2009. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel has presented before us the following chart to point out that there has been no intentional mis-declaration on the part of the importer:- 1. There was no intentional mis-declaration on the part of the importer as is evident from the chart below: S. No. Invoice No. & Date BE No. & Date SAPTA Date Net Weight (kg) Paperbook Vol -1 Page No. Bills of Entry presented initially 1 178/2009 17.05.2009 03490 21.06.2009 EPB(K)SAPTA/CDC/203 11.06.2009 59,500 24 - 29 2 191/2009 28.06.2009 03862 08.07.2009 EPB(K)SAPTA/CDC/221 30.06.2009 1,06,800 16 - 19 3 179/2009 20.05.2009 03914 12.07.2009 EPB(K)SAPTA/CDC/02 01.07.2009 1,60,725 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... resulting in the alleged mis-declaration by the Department. 7. The appellant therefore submits that mis-declaration, if any ought to be limited to the goods found in excess of the declared quantity and certainly not the entire consignment of 541.735 MT of betel nuts be held liable for confiscation. 8. Inviting our attention to the definition of the term "importer" under Section 2(26) which reads as: (26) "importer", in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes 22[any owner, beneficial owner] or any personal holding himself out to be the importer: 22. Substituted (w.e.f. 31-3-2017) by s. 89 of the Finance Act, 2017 (7 of 2017) for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9, 03862 dated 08 July 2009 and 03914 dated 12 July 2009. There was a discrepacny of over 200 MT between the quantity declared and that actually ascertained by the department. He therefore submits that the Order-in-Original passed by the learned Commissioner was legal and calls for no interference. 11. We have heard the two sides and perused the case records. 12. We find that the said six SAPTA Certificates, as were issued by one A. K.M. Khasrul, Assistant Director, Export Promotion Bureau, Khulna for the betel nuts imported. It is the contention of the Revenue that the quantity shown in SAPTA Certificates vis-à-vis actual quantity found on physical weighment did not co-relate in accordance with the invoices submitted and there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Certificate Ref. No. & Date Quantity Gross Weight (MT) No. of bags 1. EPB(K)/SAPTA/CDC/204-11.6.2009 25.840 340 Gunny bags 2. EPB(K)/SAPTA/CDC/222-30.6.2009 72.080 800 '' 3. EPB(K)/SAPTA/CDC/01 -1.7.2009 102.960 1144 '' 4. EPB(K)/SAPTA/CDC/221-30.6.2009 108.000 1200 '' 5. EPB(K)/SAPTA/CDC/203-11.6.2009 60.294 794 '' 6. EPB(K)/SAPTA/CDC.02-1.7.2009 162.725 2000 '' Total 531.819 6238 The appellant have submitted that there were six sets of Bills of Entry and others documents for the total quantity 541 MT (528 MT as per the appellant), and there has been only a minor difference between the quantity imported and ascertained. As pointed out bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ercial invoices. The fact of the import of this quantity of 203 MT is thereby fully established with this correlation. It is also noticed that the name of the notice's firm is also mentioned in each of these documents. It cannot, therefore stand to scrutiny that some other imports were now being shown to cover up the excess. A detailed set of these documents have been enclosed with the paper book. 15. The only basis for the Revenue's charge is weighment results and some inculpatory statement of drivers and locals, who apparently were unaware of the matter. We find that while the appellant have been able to documentarily establish the co-relation with the quantity under import, the inculpatory statements were also retracted. The Revenue t....