2026 (3) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....25, the appellants again prayed for an adjournment and, accordingly, these were adjourned to 28.07.2025. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellants today. The appeals were filed in the year 2009 and sufficient opportunities have been given to the appellants to present their case. 4. We have heard learned authorized representative appearing for the department and perused the records. 5. The facts which led to the issue of the impugned order and the corrigendum are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] received specific information that a consignment covered under a Airway Bill dated 13.04.2007 being imported on Air India Flight AI 311 from Hong Kong to Delhi declared to contain "clips for multimedia card (Metal Parts)" actually had memory cards concealed in them. DRI officers waited for the Bill of Entry to be filed. It was filed on 18.04.2007 by the Customs House Agent Shri Dharam Veer Sauran. The Bill of Entry declared the imported goods as be 26,800 numbers of "Clip for Multimedia Card" (metal parts). The assessable value was declared has Rs. 11,88,285/-. When the goods were examined 26,703 adaptors and 3,080 memory cards of 1GB each and 37,160 numbers of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. I impose a penalty of Rs.4,26,559/- each on Sh. Mahender Pal Singh and Sh. Uday Bhan Singh of M/s Ishan Export under section 114A of the Customs Act. 1962.No separate penalty is imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. I order confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 2,18,138/- as mentioned in Annexure-'D' under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. I confirm the demand of the Customs duty and cess amounting to Rs. 74,450/- as calculated in Annexure-'D' leviable on the aforesaid goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Clause 81 and 84 (Chapter VI) of the finance Bill (No. 2) 2004. 7. I impose penalty of Rs. 74,450/- each on Sh. Mahender Pal Singh and Sh. Bhupinder Singh Sachdeva under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. This order issues without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against them or any person (s) whether names herein above or not under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force." 10. Later, he issued a corrigendum dated 10.06.2008 allowing the redemption of the goods indicated in part 1 of the order on payment of redemption fine ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onfiscation. (iv) Clearly, this was mis-declaration of the nature of goods and their value so as to evade payment of duty. (v) The differential duty was, therefore, correctly assessed and confirmed in the impugned order. (vi) There is no force in the arguments of the appellant that no opportunity for personal hearing was given. As recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, the personal hearing was fixed on 20.12.2007 and all noticees were informed accordingly. (vii) Shri Bhupinder requested for cross-examination of the investigating officers and Shri Uday Bhan Singh the owner of Ishan Exports. Although Shri Uday Bhan Singh appeared for cross-examination on that date Bhupinder did not. The next hearing was fixed on 20.12.2007 when Shri Uday Bhan Singh again appeared along with his advocate but Bhupinder again did not turn up. (viii) Mahender approached the Settlement Commission, but the Settlement Commissioner did not accept his application. (ix) Therefore, another personal hearing was fixed on 18.02.2008, but none appeared and, therefore, another date was fixed on 20.08.2008 when Shri Naveen Malhotra appeared and cross-exami....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... several dates but the learned counsel for Mahender and Bhupinder also cross-examined Shri Uday Bhan Singh of Ishan Exports. The cross-examination only proved the case of the Revenue. 19. As far as the valuation of the goods is concerned, the value declared in the invoice was for metal clips whereas memory cards were also found in the consignment which were not declared. Therefore, the Commissioner was correct in rejecting the declared transaction value and re-determining the value under section 14 read with Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Consequently, the differential duty has been correctly confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. 20. Penalty under section 114A can be imposed if duty is not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded by reason of any collusion willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The IEC declared in the Bills of Entry was of Ishan Exports who did not import the goods but only lent his IEC to Mahender who imported the goods. The nature of the goods was also mis-declared as well as the quantity and their value. No important element in the Bill of Entry matched with the goods actually imported. Duty was sought to be evaded in this way. It ....