Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Bosch Chassis Esystems India Ltd. Versus Sh. Gagandeep Singh And Sh. Satender Singh Dahiya Versus C.C., New Delhi (ICD Tkd.)

2015 (11) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Misdeclaration of goods - Penalty u/s 114AA - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - whether the case of the appellants that declaration in the B/E of a lesser quantity than the actual quantity imported, has happened only due to an inadvertent error, is believable or not - Held that:- the quantity of the goods was wrongly stated. Mis-declaration involves an element of mens rea or intention to evade payment of duty by the party. Mis-declaration can occur due to human error also. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A have merely relied on the invoice handed over by M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd./ Importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) have imposed penalty upon the representatives of CHA observing that they omitted to compare the invoices with purchase order and B/L. As there is no deliberate act or omission established, the imposition of penalty is unjustified. For these reasons penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed. - penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- imposed on M/s Bosch Chassis System India Ltd. under 114AA is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

i C.S. The allegation against appellants is that they mis-declared the quantity of goods imported. The appeals though arising out of separate orders are connected, as they arise upon the same facts/incident. Appeal No. E/53392/2014-CU(SM) is filed by the importer and the other two appeals are filed by the authorized respresentatives of the CHA, M/s Schanker India (P) Ltd. Therefore they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. Brief facts are as under: 2. M/s Bosch Chassis Esys .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ignment, the shipper had actually raised two invoices bearing Nos. 2011927 and 2011920 for the quantity of 40,000 mts. & 50,000 mts. respectively. That when the invoices were scanned & mailed to the appellants, by the shipper, instead of these two separate invoices, the shipper had scanned invoice No.20110927 (for 40,000 mts.) twice. Thus instead of receiving two separate invoices, they had received two copies of the same invoice. This invoice was forwarded to the clearing agent who file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 8,78,874/- was also paid. A show cause notice was issued to appellants which was finalized by passing the order dated 30.4.2013 which ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed redemption fine of ₹ 15,00,000/-. The duty and differential duty paid was ordered to be appropriated. A penalty equal to the differential duty (Rs.8,78,874/-) was imposed on M/s Bosch Chassis India Ltd. under Section 114A. Besides this penalty of ₹ 2,00,000 was imposed under Section 114 (AA). A separate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a further penalty of ₹ 1,00,000 under Section 114 (AA) for assisting and handling clearance in respect of the B/E. The appellants filed appeal before the First appellate authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 17.2.2014 upheld the order passed against M/s Bosch Chassis Esystem India Ltd., but dropped the separate penalty imposed on Vijay Kumar Mullankara. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 17.12.2013 modified the penalty imposed upon Shri Gagandeep Singh &a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e shippers mistake, who scanned the same invoice twice instead of scanning the separate invoices of different quantity. He drew our attention to the contents of Bill of lading in which the quantity of goods is seen to have been correctly stated. He also relied upon the letter issued by the shipper acknowledging the mistake and mentioning the quantity that was shipped. Fortifying his arguments he relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in Escorts Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs Delhi 2000 (122) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o malafide intention or willful mis-representation and that quantity was declared incorrectly only due to mistake. Further, that penalty imposed on M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd. under Section 114AA is wholly unwarranted. That penalty under this provision can be levied only in those situations where export benefits are claimed without exporting the goods and by presenting forged documents. The learned Counsel adverted to the discussion of the Twenty Seventh Report of Standing Committee of Finance to elu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s by the appellants. The Bill of lading shows total number of packages as 18 pallets and gross weight as 9,360 and serial number of two invoices is also mentioned. But in the B/E only one invoice was shown and duty was deposited only for this invoice. That there is deliberate attempt on the part of importer to evade duty and the CHA has connived for such act. He supported the impugned order and argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given sufficient remission of penalty besides dropping the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ose for which two separate commercial invoices were generated by the supplier. It was for the first time that for one purchase order, two different invoices were generated by the foreign supplier. The supplier by mistake, instead of scanning the two separate invoices, scanned the same invoice twice. The second invoice of 50,000 mts was thus missed out. As only one invoice was usually generated by the supplier against the purchase order, the appellants send the same to the CHA for filing B/E. Whe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs of two invoices and also mentioned the entire weight as 9,360 Kgs. This argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellants is not without force. The goods were imported in two containers. The quantity found in container No. ESPU 2010630 carried 8 pallets (40,000 mts) and the quantity in Container No. DRYU 2350741 was 10 pallets (50,000 mts.). If the appellants had intention of evading duty by mis-declaring the quantity they would have avoided sending the goods in two separate containers .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iateness of the defence raised, supported by the Bill of Lading where the quantity was correctly stated, along with the letter of supplier acknowledging the mistake of scanning the same invoice twice makes the case put forward by the appellants as a probable one. From the facts and circumstances, it can be inferred that mis-declaration in the B/E was due to an inadvertent mistake which occurred because the shipper provided only one invoice instead of the two invoices raised for the order placed. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

scribed in the purchase order. The penalty imposed under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was therein set aside on finding that it was a mistake. In the case in hand, the quantity of the goods was wrongly stated. Mis-declaration involves an element of mens rea or intention to evade payment of duty by the party. Mis-declaration can occur due to human error also. In the instance case, the appellants have been able to explain the mis-declaration which reveals the nature of a wrong declaration, whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version