1991 (6) TMI 123 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:

1. Concessional rate of duty claims under Notification No. 67/85.
2. Manipulation of DOE certificates.
3. Submission of forged invoices and packing lists.
4. Mis-declaration of goods under OGL and Appendix 3A.
5. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d), (m), and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
7. Legality of confiscation and penalty under Sections 111(m) and 111(o).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Concessional Rate of Duty Claims:
The appellants claimed a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 67/85 dated 17-3-1985 using certificates from the Department of Electronics (DOE). However, the certificates were attached to other bills of entry under process in the Custom House. The adjudicating authority found that the appellants manipulated the DOE certificates to include goods not originally listed, thereby attempting to claim undue duty concessions.

2. Manipulation of DOE Certificates:
The adjudicating authority compared the DOE certificates attached to the bill of entry with the office copies from DOE and found substantial extrapolation/interpolation in the description and quantity of goods. The appellants included ordinary ICs/SSICs/MSICs as PCXT components, which were not covered under the original DOE certificates. This manipulation was aimed at falsely claiming concessional duty rates.

3. Submission of Forged Invoices and Packing Lists:
The appellants submitted locally prepared copies of invoices and packing lists with the bill of entry. The original copies seized from their factory premises showed different descriptions and values for the goods. The adjudicating authority found that the appellants declared inflated values for items eligible for concessional duty while reducing values for items with higher duty rates, thus attempting to evade customs duty.

4. Mis-declaration of Goods under OGL and Appendix 3A:
The adjudicating authority observed that certain components such as resistors, diodes, and capacitors fell under various sub-entries of Appendix 3A and required an import license, which the appellants did not produce. The appellants admitted that some items were incorrectly declared under OGL and sought permission to re-export them, acknowledging their mistake.

5. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d), (m), and (o):
The adjudicating authority held that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act for mis-declaration and submission of forged documents. The goods worth Rs. 12,956.20 falling under Appendix 3A and goods worth Rs. 3,63,962 for ICs and connectors were confiscated. The entire consignment valued at Rs. 4,11,854 was also liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and (o).

6. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112:
The adjudicating authority imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act for mis-declaration, suppression of facts, and submission of forged documents. The appellants were allowed to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000 in lieu of confiscation.

7. Legality of Confiscation and Penalty under Sections 111(m) and 111(o):
The appellants argued that confiscation under Section 111(o) was illegal as it applies only to post-clearance violations. The Tribunal agreed that Section 111(o) was not applicable but did not reduce the fine, considering the adjudicating authority had already imposed a lenient fine. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) and rejected the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the adjudication order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the adjudication order, confirming the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties for manipulation, mis-declaration, and submission of forged documents. The appeal was rejected, affirming the adjudicating authority's findings and actions.

← Previous Next →