2020 (12) TMI 131 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of seized goods - contention of the Department is that the bills of entry and the invoice value shown therein were grossly undervalued - HELD THAT - The Managing Partner in his voluntary statement agreed to produce the parallel invoices with respect to the 25 invoices referred to in the other 25 bills of entry. The same having not been produced a computation was made of the probable undervaluation based on the average undervaluation; practiced by the appellant in the recovered parallel invoices. On a rough computation the liability to duty with interest would come to Rs. 18, 11, 000/-. There would also be penalty payable in which circumstances a further amount of Rs. 25, 00, 000/- has been provisionally assessed which demand was raised in Exhibit P8 for provisional release. Considering the prima facie proof of undervaluation practiced we do not see any infirmity in the provisional release order. Rs. 25, 00, 000/- demanded therein is not a replication of the Rs. 20, 72, 000/- already paid by the appellant. The differential duty already paid is with respect to the recovered parallel invoices and the demand now raised in Exhibit P8 is based on the computation of probable undervaluation with respect to the other bills of entry which also disclosed only lesser invoice value as admitted by the Managing Partner of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Refusal to release seized goods unconditionally.
2. Department seeking further payment of differential duty.
3. Allegations of arbitrary valuation by the authorities.
4. Discrepancies in invoices and bills of entry.
5. Undervaluation of imported goods.
6. Provisional assessment and demand for payment.
7. Validity of provisional release order.
8. Mode of release - cash deposit or bond/Bank Guarantee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refusal to release seized goods unconditionally
The appeal challenged the interim order refusing unconditional release of seized goods despite a provisional release order being issued. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order, leading to the continuation of the goods' seizure.

Issue 2: Department seeking further payment of differential duty
The appellant argued against the Department's demand for an additional Rs. 25,00,000 despite already paying Rs. 20,72,000 towards the claimed differential duty. The Court directed the Department to provide a statement, which highlighted the ongoing dispute over the differential duty amount.

Issue 3: Allegations of arbitrary valuation
The appellant contended that the valuation conducted by the authorities, as evidenced by Exhibits P1 and P2, was arbitrary. The dispute arose from a raid on the appellant's godown where toys were seized, leading to discrepancies in the duty computation and subsequent demands by the Department.

Issue 4: Discrepancies in invoices and bills of entry
The Court noted discrepancies between invoices and bills of entry, specifically related to undervaluation and missing documentation such as Annexure-1 of Exhibit P1. The appellant's failure to acknowledge the seizure memo with reservations was highlighted as a procedural flaw.

Issue 5: Undervaluation of imported goods
The Department alleged gross undervaluation of imported goods based on recovered parallel invoices showing higher values than declared in bills of entry. The appellant's Managing Partner's voluntary statement promised to produce missing invoices, which influenced the Department's demand for additional duty payment.

Issue 6: Provisional assessment and demand for payment
A provisional assessment was made by the Department, considering the undervaluation discrepancies and non-production of certain invoices. The demand for Rs. 25,00,000 was based on probable undervaluation, duty liability, interest, and potential penalties, as outlined in Exhibit P8.

Issue 7: Validity of provisional release order
The Court upheld the validity of the provisional release order, emphasizing that the demanded Rs. 25,00,000 was distinct from the Rs. 20,72,000 already paid by the appellant. The order was justified based on prima facie evidence of undervaluation and the computation of probable duty liabilities.

Issue 8: Mode of release - cash deposit or bond/Bank Guarantee
Clarification was provided that the release could be executed through a bond or Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, addressing the appellant's concerns regarding cash deposit requirements. The Court rejected the appeal, affirming the provisional release order and cost implications for the parties involved.

← Previous Next →