TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered as filed without any authorization. Once the Bill of Entry has been filed without any authorization, and in contravention of regulations, it has to be considered as the one filed by the appellant in their own capacity. Therefore, the burden of showing that the consignment was a bona fide gift falls on the appellant and in the absence of discharge of such obligation, the appellant prima facie becomes liable to pay duty. Period of limitation - Held that:- , if the authorizations were to be kept for one year and if the appellants were to keep KYC records for one year that would have been sufficient and duty demand for the period beyond one year may have to be considered in the light of statutory provisions, relevant notifications, B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of Notification No.171/93 Cus dated16.09.1993 read with Courier lmport Export (Clearance) Regulations,1998(CIECR) thus causing huge loss to the exchequer in terms of customs duty. ii) On the basis of this intelligence and inspection/verification was ordered and in order to verify the existence and genuineness of the consignees for whom such imports were stated to have been made, the Courier operator was asked to produce the consignee authorizations obtained by them under Regulation 13(a)of CIECR. They conceded that they had not obtained such authorization and hence did not produce the consignee authorizations. iii) Shri Godfrey Prathap, Mg Partner in his statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 has admitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in India in order to fraudulently avail of the benefit of duty exemption extended to bona fide gifts under Notification No. 171 /1993 Customs dated 16.9.1993 read with the provisions of Regulation 3(d) of the CIECR, 1998. The consignee addresses were all bogus and the goods were cleared and handed over to the agent of the consignor in India. The above action of illegal import of unaccompanied baggage/trade items without payment of duty by misusing the exemption granted for bona fide gifts by falsification of records and fabrication of documents has rendered them liable to pay duty of ₹ 27,77,16,984/- and the amount is liable to be demanded from them by invoking extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lfill the obligations under CIECR. They were required to get an authorization post import from the consignees at the time of delivery which they did not do; the regulations clearly provided that the work cannot sub-contracted or entrusted to some one else whereas the appellants had appointed agents to undertake delivery which is contrary to regulations; that appellants were also required to observe KYC norms and keep record of such evidence on record which they have failed to do. The very fact that several import consignments were cleared and all of them were less than ₹ 10,000/- in value and all of them were claimed to be bona fide gifts etc. eligible for exemption would show that the appellants had deliberately imported the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... becomes very clear that in the absence of post facto authorization, the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant has to be considered as filed without any authorization. Once the Bill of Entry has been filed without any authorization, and in contravention of regulations, it has to be considered as the one filed by the appellant in their own capacity. Therefore, the burden of showing that the consignment was a bona fide gift falls on the appellant and in the absence of discharge of such obligation, the appellant prima facie becomes liable to pay duty. In this view of the clear legal position taken by us, we consider that the appellants reliance on Regulation 11 which according to them provides that first, duty should be demanded from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be payable. 10. According to regulations 12(i)(i), the authorization received from the consignees are required to be retained for a period of one year or the date of audit by Customs whichever is earlier. In this case it was submitted by the learned counsel that no verification was conducted, no audit was done and appellant was not informed or asked to retain such authorization. In fact, the officers concerned never asked the appellant whether such authorizations were obtained. In such a situation, in this case, if the authorizations were to be kept for one year and if the appellants were to keep KYC records for one year that would have been sufficient and duty demand for the period beyond one year may have to be considered in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
