2018 (5) TMI 1149 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114A and 114AA of CA, 1962 - Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of value on the basis of contemporaneous import - Held that - No evidence was found that the appellants have suppressed the value and additional consideration was paid by some other means. Since the assessment was finalized in the Bills of Entry itself and duty was paid on the enhanced value, therefore, there was no reason to issue the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice was issued only for imposition of penalty under Section 114A. It is observed that the demand was neither raised nor confirmed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, in absence of any determination of duty under Section 28(1), penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed. Therefore, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A. From the reading of Section 114AA, it is observed that if the person knowingly makes the false declaration or signs any such document then only he will be liable to penalty under Section 114AA - In the present case, there is no case that the Director of company has done any act which specified under Section 114AA. Even the enhancement of value was done on the basis of contemporaneous import, it cannot be said that the Director has done anything to mis-declare the value - neither the penalty on the appellant company nor on the Director was imposable. The penalty is not imposable either on the appellant company or on the Director - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Disputed value of imported goods
2. Denial of condonation of delay in filing appeal
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties
4. Validity of show-cause notice
5. Imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA

Disputed value of imported goods:
The appellant imported Teak round logs and declared a value of ?1,58,32,569/-, which was disputed by the Customs authority. An enhanced value of ?2,90,92,343/- was proposed based on contemporaneous imports. The appellant agreed to pay duty on the enhanced value without a show-cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment, leading to a Tribunal appeal dismissed for delay. A subsequent show-cause notice proposed confiscation and penalties. The goods were held liable for confiscation, but no redemption fine was imposed as the goods were not available. However, penalties under Section 114A and 114AA were imposed on the appellant company and its Director.

Denial of condonation of delay in filing appeal:
The Tribunal denied condonation of the 607-day delay in filing the appeal, leading to its dismissal. The appellant argued that since the Tribunal's dismissal was only due to delay and not on merit, the adjudicating authority should not have considered it. The appellant also contended that since the goods were not seized or released provisionally, confiscation was unwarranted. The appellant emphasized the lack of evidence of value suppression and argued against the imposition of penalties.

Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties:
The Customs authority disputed the declared value of imported goods, leading to an enhanced value proposal accepted by the appellant. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued proposing confiscation and penalties. The goods were held liable for confiscation, but no redemption fine was imposed. Penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA were imposed on the appellant company and its Director. The Revenue argued for penalties based on misdeclaration of value, which the appellant contested.

Validity of show-cause notice:
The appellant challenged the validity of the show-cause notice, arguing that since duty was paid on the enhanced value after finalizing the assessment, there was no basis for the notice. The appellant contended that the notice was issued solely for imposing penalties under Section 114A, which was deemed incorrect due to the absence of duty determination under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA:
The Tribunal found that the penalties imposed under Sections 114A and 114AA were not warranted. The penalty under Section 114A was set aside due to the absence of duty determination under Section 28(1). Regarding the penalty under Section 114AA on the Director, it was noted that there was no evidence of intentional false declarations or actions warranting the penalty. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant company and its Director, concluding that they were not imposable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellants based on the disputed value of imported goods, denial of condonation of appeal delay, confiscation of goods, validity of the show-cause notice, and imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA.

← Previous Next →