Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 904 - CESTAT NEW DELHILevy of Penalty u/s 112 - Scope of the show cause notice - Mis-declaration and re-classification of imported goods - re-classification done on the basis of visual inspection and no evidence produced by the department - Onus to prove the classification - Voluntariness and retraction of the statement made by the appellant - duty paid ‘under protest’ - clearance of the goods declared as “Copper Clad Laminates-AL grade” classified under CTH 7474102100 - HELD THAT:- The goods were put under preventive check and on examination were found to be mis-declared in terms of the description of the classification as they appeared to be “Aluminium Paste Copper Clad Laminates” classifiable under CTH 76061200. Hence the goods were seized u/s 110 of the Act on the reasonable belief that the same are liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Act. It is evident that the appellant has voluntarily accepted and admitted that the goods have been mis-classified due to mistake and, therefore, paid the differential customs duty. The principle settled by judicial pronouncements is clear that once the party admits, the same need not be proved by the department. Issue of retraction - The statement was made on 25.03.2021 and the retraction was made vide communication dated 16.04.2021, which is nothing but afterthought and belated action and hence no reliance can be placed thereon. Also no other material has been placed on record to corroborate the fact that the statement were recorded under the exhortation and duress. Duty paid ‘under protest’ - The statement dated April 16, 2021 that they paid the differential duty amount under protest is just an afterthought and has no evidential value and, therefore, the plea needs to be rejected. Penalty u/s 112 - No show cause notice has been issued proposing the demand of differential duty or the penalty. On adjudication, the penalty was imposed only under section 114A of the Act and there was no reference at all to the provisions of section 112 of the Act. Once the appellant has challenged the said order in original, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to decide the issues under challenge which was the differential duty amount and the penalty u/s 114A. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) travelled beyond the jurisdiction in the matter of imposing penalty u/s 112 of the Act and, therefore, the same is set aside. To the extent the impugned order stands modified. The appeal is, accordingly, partially allowed.
|