2025 (5) TMI 1285 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 - Allegation of undervaluation - scrap imported from various countries - Entitlement to the same reliefs - appellant being a co-accused similarly placed as the main accused and other co-accused - HELD THAT - This Court finds that issue is no more res Integra and has been decided after elaborate arguments and findings in the in the matter of M/s. Agarwal Metal and Alloys Vipul Agarwal Samir Agarwal Ramesh Kumar H. Jain Vs. C.C.-Kandla 2020 (2) TMI 644 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD inter alia absolved the main accused in any charge of under valuation. There can be no reason to uphold the penalty against present appellant on the basis of similarity of facts. Thus the appeal of the appellant on penalty is liable to succeed the penalty of Rs. 2, 00, 000/- imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 is liable to be set aside. Same is ordered accordingly. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in the appeal are:

• Whether the appellant, being a co-accused similarly placed as the main accused and other co-accused in a related matter, is entitled to the same reliefs and absolution from duty, interest, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, as granted in the precedent case involving M/s. Agarwal Metal & Alloys and others.
• Whether the reassessment or re-enhancement of customs duty valuation on imported scrap consignments is sustainable when the initial assessment has attained finality due to lack of appeal or review.
• Whether additional customs duty is payable on imported scrap, considering that scrap is not a manufactured product.
• The applicability and sustainability of penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.
• Whether the issue of limitation requires adjudication in the present appeal.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement of the appellant to reliefs granted to co-accused in a related matter

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal relied heavily on a prior decision reported in 2020 (2) TMI 644-CESTAT Ahmedabad concerning M/s. Agarwal Metal & Alloys and others, where the main accused and co-accused involved in undervaluation allegations on imported scrap were absolved of duty, interest, and penalty. The Customs Act, 1962 provisions related to valuation and penalties were central to the determination.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appellant was similarly placed as the co-accused in the cited precedent, having sold consignments on a high seas basis through various parties. The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts or circumstances that would justify a different treatment. The principle of consistency and equality before law was applied, leading to the conclusion that the appellant deserved the same reliefs.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's transactions and involvement mirrored those of the co-accused absolved in the precedent case. The Tribunal noted the absence of any contrary evidence or rationale to deny similar relief.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the precedent decision directly, holding that the appellant's penalty and demands were unsustainable given the analogous factual matrix.

Treatment of competing arguments: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the revenue conceded that the facts in the present appeal were not materially different from the precedent case but urged adherence to the lower authority's findings. The Tribunal rejected this submission in favor of consistency with the earlier ruling.

Conclusions: The appellant was entitled to the same reliefs as the co-accused in the precedent case, including absolution from penalty and duty demands.

Issue 2: Sustainability of reassessment or re-enhancement of customs valuation after finality of assessment

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referred to established principles that once an assessment order attains finality due to absence of appeal or review, reassessment or re-enhancement of value is impermissible. Supporting case law cited includes CC vs Lord Shiva Overseas (2005), Malhotra Impex vs CC (2006), CC vs Paras Electronics (2009), and the Tribunal's own earlier orders in the Sunland Metal matter.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that 166 Bills of Entry had already undergone value enhancement at the time of initial assessment, which had attained finality. Therefore, any subsequent proposal to re-enhance value was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal followed the binding precedents to reject reassessment.

Key evidence and findings: The record showed that no appeal or review was filed against the initial enhancement order, confirming its finality. Additionally, in 50 Bills of Entry, the Commissioner (Appeal) had set aside the value enhancement, and the revenue's appeal against that order was dismissed by the Tribunal.

Application of law to facts: The finality of assessment barred any further valuation enhancement or reassessment. The Tribunal applied this principle strictly to the facts before it.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue's insistence on upholding the reassessment was rejected as inconsistent with settled law and the factual status of the prior orders.

Conclusions: Reassessment or re-enhancement of customs valuation after finality of assessment was held impermissible and unsustainable.

Issue 3: Liability to pay additional customs duty on imported scrap

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal considered the nature of scrap as a non-manufactured product and relied on its prior ruling in the Sunland Metal case, which held that no additional customs duty is payable on scrap.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reaffirmed that scrap, not being a manufactured product, does not attract additional customs duty. This principle was applied to the appellant's case, entitling him to all reliefs and exemptions associated with such assessment.

Key evidence and findings: The classification and nature of the imported goods as scrap were undisputed, and the precedent ruling was directly applicable.

Application of law to facts: The legal principle exempting scrap from additional duty was applied to negate the revenue's demand in this regard.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue did not successfully dispute the nature of scrap or the binding precedent.

Conclusions: The appellant was not liable to pay additional customs duty on imported scrap.

Issue 4: Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers imposition of penalty for certain contraventions. The Tribunal considered whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was sustainable in light of the findings absolving him of duty and valuation irregularities.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the appellant was absolved of the primary charges of undervaluation and duty evasion, the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) could not be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty cannot be imposed without a substantive breach of duty or valuation norms.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's conduct mirrored that of co-accused who were absolved, and no independent evidence justified penalty.

Application of law to facts: The penalty was set aside as the foundational basis for its imposition was negated by the Tribunal's findings.

Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue's position was overruled given the appellant's entitlement to relief.

Conclusions: The penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 112(b) was quashed.

Issue 5: Issue of limitation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Limitation provisions under the Customs Act regulate the time period within which demands and penalties may be imposed.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal explicitly noted that since the appeals were