TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous importers are importing goods declared as "rough precious stones" and "semi-precious stones" such as Blue Sapphire, Ruby, etc., mainly from Hong Kong and Dubai, by over-invoicing the same. As per the intelligence, goods of inferior quality, having no value in the market, are being declared before the Indian Customs with a high value, with a view to send illegal money out of India in the guise of import payments leading to 'Trade Based Money Laundering', there being no customs duty on the said items and IGST payable being nominal. Acting on such intelligence, investigations were initiated by the DRI, KZU against imports of such goods by way of several Bills of Entry from Kolkata Airport by M/s. Gaurik Trading Private Limited and M/s. Destiny (Star) India Private Limited. 2.1. During the course of investigation, the investigating officers came to the conclusion that Shri Amit Bhutoria, a Government approved valuer (appellant herein), had connived with Shri Ashok Kumar Chanda of M/s. Chatterjee & Co., on behalf of M/s. Gaurik Trading Private Ltd. and others, amongst other valuers, to facilitate clearance of such mis-declared goods; that as a Govt. Approved valuer, the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of Section 112(b)(iii) of the said Act was however set aside by the ld. lower appellate authority. 3.3. The details of the penalties confirmed and/or upheld against the appellant, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings are as under: - Sl. No. Appeal No. OIA No. & Dt. Penalty imposed 1. C/75778/2023 OIA No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/KS/495/2023 dated 30.06.2023 Rs.22,50,000/- under Section 112(a)(iii) Rs.45,00,000/- under Section 114AA 2. C/75779/2023 OIA No. KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/KS/494/2023 dated 30.06.2023 Rs.37,50,000/- under Section 112(a)(iii) Rs.75,00,000/- under Section 114AA 3.4. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalties as above, the appellant has filed these appeals. 3.5. As the issue involved in both these appeals are the same, both are taken up together for issuing a common order. 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has made various submissions, which can be broadly summarized as under: - (i) The samples preserved by department from consignments examined by the appellant were never revalued by the Government appointed valuer Sri Sunil Verma. Such samples were also not examined by Geologica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... description of the goods or its composition. (x) There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had prior knowledge about the impugned import or that he knowingly or intentionally gave the over-invoiced value to the goods examined by him or that he connived or abetted the offence u/s 112 of the act. (xi) The presumption of innocence is a background of our legal system. From the allegations against the appellant it is seen that there is nothing to prove that there was a common intention between the appellant or any of the others involved, or that they worked in connivance. As a rule of prudence while examining the evidentiary value of a statement, it is desirable to seek corroboration of such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record which is lacking in the instant case. (xii) None of others involved in the offence case, implicated the appellant. Findings in the impugned orders do not state that appellant had any stake in the impugned imports or he got any extra consideration save and except his govt. prescribed fees. The evidences do not show that the appellant had a common intention along with importer and others involved to do or om....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods 7.1. A perusal of the sections extracted above reveals that for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a)(iii), it must be established that the actions of the appellant rendered the goods liable for confiscation under the Customs Act while for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA, the appellant must have intentionally made some false statement or submitted incorrect documents. 8. In the present case, we find that the allegation against the appellant is that he has connived with the importers and intentionally, incorrectly and falsely certified the values of the goods imported under the impugned bills of entry to help the importers. We note that the appellant is a Government approved valuer, who was called by the importer for valuation of certain consignment of precious/ semi-precious stones. As a valuer, he certified the goods as precious / semi-precious rough stones whereas, allegedly, the goods were actually of inferior quality stones whose value is Rs.8,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per kg. Reliance has been placed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation has been initiated by the Department against some importers, as listed under paragraph 7.3 of the said order. For the sake of ready reference, the Table indicating the list of such importers against whom investigation has been conducted is reproduced below: - BE BE DATE Goods declared QTY (in Kgs) "ASS VAL". .Govt .. Valuers .. Value given by Valuers 2162786 22-02-2019 Rough Precious Stones Blue Sapphire 17.774 Rs. 6,44,57,766 Abhishek Saraogi Rs. 6,63,85,889 2160971 22-02-2019 17.769 Rs. 6,44,61,275 Dulpesh Kothari Rs. 6,74,84,763 2162785 22-02-2019 17.772 Rs. 6,45,80,604 Abhishek Saraogi Rs. 6,65,57,562 2163262 22-02-2019 17.772 Rs. 6,45,97,666 Abhishek Saraogi Rs. 6,66,45,000 2160218 22-02-2019 Rough Stones Blue Sapphire 17.777 Rs. 6,45,51,845 Kirit H. Kotlari Rs. 7,01,40,931 2162534 22-02-2019 .. .17.771 ..... 6,45,30,036. Kadam Kumar "" Surana Rs..6,74,30,282 2162793 22-02-2019 17.773 Rs. 6,45,16,005 Kadam Kumar Surana Rs. 6,74,37,871 The goods declared in the said Bills of Entry were as follows: - S N AWB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove said importers. Therefore, we find that the goods examined by the appellant and the goods valued by GSI and the Govt. appointed valuer, Sri Sunil K. Verma are not the same. 10. We find that in respect of the other appeal viz. Customs Appeal No. 75778 of 2023 also, there is no evidence that the goods examined by the appellant were the subject matter of the proceedings in the said appeal. There is no evidence adduced by the Revenue to establish that the goods examined by the appellant and the goods pertaining to the investigation are one and the same. 11. We find that the appellant acted as a valuer in his professional capacity. There is nothing on record to show that he derived any benefit from the impugned imports or intended to derive any such benefit. The evidences available on record indicate that he gave his valuation as per the invoice of the Overseas Supplier. It is on record that the value which was given by the appellant was never acted upon or accepted by the Department. We also find that there is no evidence available on record to indicate that the appellant has done the valuation on receipt of extra monetary consideration. We are therefore of the view that suc....