TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015, 41783/2015, 41784/2015, 41785/2015, 41900/2015, 41960/2015, 41961/2015, 41962/2015, 41963/2015, 41964/2015, 41623/2018 - FINAL ORDER Nos. 41502-41527/2025<br>Customs<br>MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate for the Appellant (Sl.No.1,6-8,15-20) Ms. V. Prameela, Advocate for the Appellant (Sl.No.3-5,21-25) Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant (Sl.No.11) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant (Sl.No. 2,9,10,26) Shri K.V. Subramanian, Senior Advocate for the Appellant (Sl. No.12-14) Shri Anoop Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P. Dinesha These Appeals are filed against common impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Customs clearance were alleged to have received the documents from Balaji of M/s. Jay Bee Logistics. After clearance, the consignments were handed over to the transporters on the instruction of Balaji. It is thus the case of the Revenue that Jatin Seth of M/s. R.K. Enterprises, Tirupur in active connivance of N. Balaji, Proprietor of M/s. Jay Bee Logistics imported garment accessories at "nil" rate of Custom Duty as provided under Customs Notification No.21/2002 (Sl. No.140 and 167) & 12/2012 (Sl. No.282) by using the IECs, EPCs and ICs (issued by AEPC) of 15 Exporters. After completion of investigation, DRI Chennai issued Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2013 read with corrigendum dated 03.05.2013 to the Appellants. 2.1 A perusal of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said Customs Notification. Therefore, subject goods are leviable to Customs Duty on merit. 4. Even though the goods were cleared on "nil" rate of duty, it is revealed by Jatin Seth and N. Balaji that the value was under-declared in order to minimize the commission given to the IEC holders or their employees, as the declared value was not representing the actual value of the goods, the same was liable for rejection under Rule 12 read with Rule 3 of Customs Valuation Rules (CVR), 2007. Actual (suppliers) invoices in the form of excel sheets (.xls format) forwarded by the supplier are available for consignments imported by Shri Jatin vide 13 Bills of Entry which was As evident from the printouts of e-mail correspondence submitted by Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 167, 167A & 140), as applicable during the period, have been contravened inasmuch as the conditions prescribed under said serial numbers have not been complied with. The impugned consignments have actually been imported by a trader viz., Shri Jatin Seth in the name of various garment exporters misusing their IE Code as against the primary condition that the goods must be imported invariably by a garment exporter registered with AEPC, thereby violating the actual user condition prescribed in the Notification. Further, the impugned goods have not been used in the manufacture of garments meant for export either directly by the manufacturer-exporter or indirectly by the merchant-exporter through approved supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and freight forwarders for the import consignments in question, having held to have attended customs clearance without exercising due diligence. In view of the above facts, it was proposed in the SCN to make Jatin Seth and each garment exporter answerable to the Adjudicating Authority for duty, interest as well as penalty, several garment exporters have to be severally and / or jointly (with Jatin Seth) answerable to the respective Adjudicating Authorities. Accordingly, proposal was made (i) to deny exemption benefit under Customs Notification No.12/2012 ibid (ii) to reject the declared/assessed value in respect of the goods imported and demand the differential duty apart from applicable interest and penalties. 9. It is very clear from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tities / juridical persons and therefore there could not be any proposal in the first place to demand jointly and / or severally which was unfortunately confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Original. They would also submit that the error so committed was further perpetuated by the very Adjudicating Authority by passing a corrigendum. 13. Per contra, Shri Anoop Singh, Ld. Joint Commissioner took us through the proposals made in the SCN and the demand confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Original and submitted that corrigendum was nothing but what was confirmed in the Order-in-Original has been reiterated for clarity through the corrigendum. 14. On the above primary issue, we have considered the rival contentions and in following decisions ....