Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 168 - HC - CustomsPenalty u/s 112 of CA and u/s 114AA of CA - misdeclaration of goods - Held that - The appellant does not dispute and accepts that he wanted to take delivery of the consignment and was present outside the clearance gate with the gate pass. It is also not disputed that the consignment was mis-declared and was not imported by M/s Rajdhani Crafts, Jaipur. Contents and value of the consignment is not challenged. The appellant also has accepted that he had also made a request for transportation of the goods and that he had prior knowledge and information about the mis-declaration of the goods and the actual contents - penalty u/s 112 upheld. Penalty u/s 114AA - Held that - The appellant had used the false and incorrect gate pass and had caused to be used the said false declaration, statement and document - penalty upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Reduction of penalty under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Liability to pay customs duty. 3. Involvement of the appellant in mis-declaration and clandestine import. Reduction of Penalty under Sections 112 and 114AA: The appellant challenged the order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, which reduced the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act from ?67,17,015 to ?5,00,000 and set aside the direction to pay customs duty. The Tribunal invoked Section 114AA, holding the appellant liable for knowingly using false declarations. The Tribunal found the appellant's involvement in the mis-declaration based on evidence, including the statement of the transporter and the presence of the gate pass with the appellant. Despite the appellant's argument to set aside the penalty under Section 114AA, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the appellant's actions warranted the penalty under the said section. Liability to Pay Customs Duty: The case involved a situation where a consignment was mis-declared, and the appellant was found to be involved in the process. The appellant accepted his involvement in the mis-declaration and had prior knowledge of the actual contents of the consignment. The consignment, which was supposed to contain spare parts of weaving machines, was found to have Micro SD Cards and RAM instead. The High Court noted that the appellant's presence at the clearance gate with the gate pass and his acceptance of the mis-declaration indicated his clear involvement in the fraudulent activity. The Court affirmed that the appellant could not dispute the mis-declaration or the actual contents of the consignment. Involvement of the Appellant in Mis-Declaration and Clandestine Import: The appellant claimed that he got involved with the subject goods to help an acquaintance who had provided him with the gate pass and informed him about the contents of the consignment. However, the Court found that the appellant's actions, including accepting the mis-declaration and being present at the clearance gate, demonstrated his active involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that he was falsely implicated, emphasizing that his knowledge and participation in the mis-declaration were established through evidence. The Court upheld the penalty under Section 114AA, stating that the appellant's actions warranted the imposition of the penalty given the false declarations used in the transaction. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on the penalty reduction under Sections 112 and 114AA, as well as the liability to pay customs duty, based on the appellant's active involvement in the mis-declaration and clandestine import scheme.
|