TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssuance of dual invoices. As per investigation, the appellant, being Director of M/s Maxx Access Ltd., Hong Kong, coordinated procurement of furniture from Chinese manufacturers, facilitated visits of Indian buyers to China, finalized prices, supervised manufacture and export of goods and arranged issuance of two sets of invoices, mainly one invoice reflecting actual transaction value and another invoice refracting suppressed value for Customs purposes. It was further alleged that differential amounts between actual invoice value and declared Customs value were remitted through unofficial / private channels. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated proposing penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114 AA of the Customs Act. 3. The allegation against the appellant as per Show Cause Notice, as thus: "3.1 From the foregoing, it appears that: a) Shri Ashok Kharey, Director of M/s Maxx Access Ltd., has been in contact/invited the parties intending to import furniture from China and facilitated visit to the manufacturing units / furniture showrooms in China, assisted them in identifying the proper furniture required by them and in placing orders. b) Once the price ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication and therefore, no penalty could have been imposed against the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that during the material period (September, 2006 to October, 2006), the Customs Act, 1962 had no jurisdiction and was applicable only within India. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) C.K. Kunhammed Vs Collector of Central Excise & Customs [1992 (62) ELT 146 (Tribunal)] ii) Shafeek P.K. Vs Commissioner of Cutoms, Cochin [2015 (325) ELT 199 (Tri-Bang)] iii) Guru Electronics Singapore Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, [2009 (240) ELT 56 (Tri-Bang)] iv) M/s Seville Products Ltd., Vs CC, New Delhi [2021 (3) TMI 775 CESTAT- New Delhi - I] v) M/s Seville Products Ltd., VS Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana [2021 (378) ELT 291 (Tri-Chan)] vi) Ashok Kharey & Others [2025 (6) TMI 1441 - CESTAT Bangalore] 6. It is also submitted that no reliable evidence exist for establishing conscious involvement of the appellant in undervaluation. 7. Learned Authorized Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and also, inter alia, submits th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra, the person was not in India either at the time of commission of offence or later, and the issue pertained to territorial applicability in entirely different factual circumstances where no direct evidence existed showing active participation in import fraud completed within India. In the present matter, the appellant was not a remote foreign entity having incidental connection with imports. Investigation specifically establishes that he consciously facilitated under valuation intended for use before Indian Customs Authorities. Thus, the ratio of the said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. 14. In the case of Guru Electronics Singapore Pvt Ltd.,, supra, the company was incorporated in Singapore, and penalty were imposed, the tribunal Bangalore was primarily examining liability of a foreign supplier in circumstances were direct evidence establishing intentional abetment of Customs fraud in India was absent. In the instant case, however, there is specific evidence regarding preparation of dual invoices, suppressed declarations and clandestine collection of differential considerations in India. Therefore, unlike the facts in Guru Electronics Singapore Pvt Ltd., supra, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Customs Act (dated 29.03.2018), the Customs Act had no extra-territorial application/ jurisdiction. We are unable to accept the said contention in the peculiar facts of the present case. The present proceedings do not seek to penalize of acts committed abroad in isolation. The acts allegedly committed abroad culminated into undervaluation of imported goods within India, resulting in evasion of Customs duty payable in India. The taxable event under Customs law is importation into India. Once manipulated invoices were knowingly prepared and utilized for Customs clearance in India, the offence stood completed within Indian Territory. A person situated outside India, who consciously and deliberately participates in fraudulent importation into India, cannot seek immunity merely because of the conspiracy (acts of appellant) originated outside India. The Customs Authorities, therefore, rightly exercised jurisdiction against the appellant. 18. The contention of the appellant that no Show Cause Notice was issued or any penalty imposed upon principal offender and that, consequential, no penalty can be levied upon the appellant, is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. We fin....