TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n"). The challenge is limited to the extent of the settlement amount and the penalty imposed upon the Petitioners. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the present petition are that one M/s. Broadcast Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter "BSPL"), a company incorporated in Singapore, was awarded a contract in 2012 by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter "BCCI") for providing broadcast equipment and associated services for covering the Indian Premier League, as also other international and domestic cricket events organised by the BCCI. 4. EBSPL, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is stated to be an associate of BSPL, Singapore, was assigned performance of the obligations under the said contract for broadcasting of the cricket events. In order to perform its obligations, EBSPL had to import a substantial amount of broadcasting equipment into India. In respect of the same it had engaged one M/s. Broekman Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., a freight forwarder and logistics agent, for customs clearance, etc., and the broadcasting equipment was imported between the period December, 2012 and March, 2013. 5. It is the case of the Petitioners that as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication was filed in both branches of the Settlement Commission, i.e., Bombay and Delhi, and finally the settlement application before the Bombay branch was also transferred to the Principal Bench, at New Delhi. The Settlement Commission had considered the report from the DRI and the final hearing took place before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission then passed the impugned final order dated 23rd March, 2017 as per which the following duties and penalties were imposed upon the Petitioner. "20. In view of the above, and the facts of the circumstances of the case, the Bench hereby settles the case under Section l27C(5) of the Act on the following terms and condition:- DUTY: Custom duty in case of imports made through different ports is settled as detailed below:- Port of import Jurisdiction Commissioner Custom duty settled (Rs) JNPT, Nhava Sheva Pr Commissioner of Customs (General), JNPT Nhava Sheva 4,21,75,299/- Air Cargo (Import), New Delhi Pr Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo (Import] New Delhi 5,09,06,191/- ICD, TKD (Import] Pr Commissioner of Customs ICD TKD (Import), New Delhi 42,97,195/- Total ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amounts. The settled amount of duty, penalty and interest should be paid by the applicant with in 30 days of receipt of this order. Shri Manoj Govindan Nair, Senior Manager, Broekman Logistics India Pvt Ltd and Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt Ltd, who have been asked to show cause to Commissioner of Customs (General), JNPT Nhava Sheva, as to why penalty should not be levied upon them under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as applicable have not approached Settlement Commission. Therefore, the action as proposed in SCN dated 18.3.15 against Shri Manoj Govindan Nair and Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt Ltd should be taken by Jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs (General), JNPT Nhava Sheva. Prosecution: Subject to payment of duty, interest if any, penalty, the Bench grants immunity to the applicant and co-applicant from prosecution under the Act and Rules framed there under as applicable in so far as this case is concerned." 11. As can be seen from the impugned order extracted above, the applicable customs duty was settled at Rs. 9,73,78,685/- and penalty was imposed in the following terms: Port of Import Customs duty settled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty itself was not liable to be paid. It was only under professional advice from the Customs Clearinghouse Agent that the subject equipment was imported to the Free Trade & Warehousing Zone and then declared as 'DEMO'. 15. There was no ill intention of the Petitioner Firm to avoid payment of duty. Infact prior to the issuance of the SCN itself, the applicable customs duty was paid. 16. Further, reliance is placed upon the following decisions: a. Jaswant Rai and Ors. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Revenue and Ors. [1998 (5) SCC 77] b. In re: Yamaha Motors Pvt. Ltd [2007 (214) ELT 129 (Set Comm.)] c. In re: Kitex Garments Ltd. [2007 (212) ELT 254 (Set Comm)] d. In re: Chandra Industries [2004 (177) ELT 775 (Set Comm)] e. In re: Pee Jay International Ltd. [2004 (178) ELT 1069 (Set Comm)] f. In re: Kansal Industries [2007 (220) ELT 619 (Set Comm)] 17. It is further argued that the EBSPL had imported similar subject equipment even in the past and since the said equipment was to be re-exported, infact, no duty was payable by EBSPL. In the normal course, if the imports were made, even if the duty was deposited, EBSPL wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his lapse during investigation and in his Settlement application. As a consequence, the applicants are liable to penalty and the goods in question are liable to confiscation. [...] In the instant case, the applicant has not submitted any report from overseas chartered engineer or equivalent agencies in India notified by DGFT, or locally empaneled chartered engineers, but has claimed that duty should be calculated on the book value of the goods. This is not the prescribed procedure for arriving at the value of the goods in view of the conditions laid down in Customs Circular No 25/2015-Cus dated 15.10.2015. In the absence of any of the reports laid down in Custom Circular No 25/2015-Cus dated 15.10.2015, detailed above, the Department had no alternative but to resort to apply the depreciation rates as laid down in CBEC Circular No 493/124/86-Cus VI dated 19.11.1987 on the invoice value of the goods which was furnished by the applicant himself during the course of investigations. Further, though the applicant has claimed that the rates of depreciation as laid down in CBEC Circular No 493/124/86-Cus VI dated 19.11.1987 ought not to be applied in the case of high end ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g sold or disposed of in India. Thus, under normal circumstances, no duty would have been liable to be paid if the declaration was properly made by the EBSPL. EBSPL would have been entitled to claim duty drawback on the subject imports, as per applicable norms. 24. However, for whatever reasons, may be under incorrect advice from the Customs Clearinghouse Agent or otherwise, EBSPL resorted to import the subject equipment through the Free Trade & Warehousing Zone by wrongly declaring the same to be DEMO equipment. This misdeclaration was clearly investigated by the DRI and thereafter, EBSPL had paid the applicable customs duty for release of the subject equipment, albeit, prior to the issuance of the SCN. 25. The Settlement Commission has considered the entire matter and has imposed a substantial amount of penalty on the Petitioners. The Penalty has also been imposed on the Directors to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- each. The applicable customs duty which has already been paid by EBSPL to the tune of approximately Rs. 9.73 crores, which in this case is a substantial amount. 26. Under normal circumstances, this duty would have been liable to be refunded to the Petitioner if th....