TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customs duty. The main evidence relied upon in support of the allegation was that customs authorities at Hong Kong had reported to Indian Customs (through consul at Hong Kong) that the actual prices of the consignments were higher than the invoiced amounts and that false invoice values were put down in the invoice under an understanding between the foreign supplier and the Indian importer. The Hong Kong Customs Authorities also forwarded export declarations filed (in respect of some consignments) by the foreign supplier before Hong Kong Customs in support of their report that the price declarations were false. The notices, therefore proposed to recover the evaded customs duty, to confiscate the imported goods and to impose penalty on the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After perusing those materials the learned Counsel for the appellant has made his final submissions. Written submissions have also been filed. 4.The appellants have raised a wide range of defences. The very first relates to the reliability of the evidence procured by the Customs Authorities. It has been pointed out that in respect of 5 out of 11 Bill of Entries under which imports took place, export declarations have not been made available by the Hong Kong Customs Authorities. The appellants also have re-iterated their objections like export declarations have not been authenticated, the invoice relating to those export declarations have not been produced, the export declarations are not legible, they contained correction etc. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a clear case of deliberate under-valuation of goods so as to evade customs duty. She has also submitted that the whole fraud has been elaborately well planed inasmuch as, according to prior agreement, the appellant's foreign supplier was under invoicing the goods, even as the appellant importer was making full payments for the goods. She has in this contest referred to the report dated 29th September, 1998 of the Hong Kong Customs. The learned SDR has pointed out that the under-valuation remains confirmed by the investigations carried out by the Hong Kong Customs. She also pointed out that in some of the cases, the Hong Kong Customs have also forwarded the export declarations filed by the Exporters and these export declarations showed muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o doubt that these objections cannot be accepted and that there should not have any hesitation in upholding the impugned findings. The main basis of the revised valuation is the report dated 29th September, 1998 from Hong Kong Customs and the materials furnished by them in support of the findings recorded in that report. We read the relevant portion from that report :- "Our investigation revealed that there were double-invoicing arrangements in respect of eight of the nine invoices referred by you. The company issued the false invoices for customs clearance purpose. It also issued genuine invoices to the Indian importer for collection of payments. The Indian importer paid the invoiced amounts in the false invoices by D/P and settled the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their defence. The decision of the Apex Court in CC, Bombay v. East Punjab Traders [1997 (89) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) = 1997 (18) RLT 537 (S.C.)] case related to obtaining of some document from abroad by visiting customs officer and using that as evidence in customs proceedings. As against that, in the present case, the customs authorities of another jurisdiction have investigated the transaction at their end and have reported findings. Some documents have also been forwarded to substantiate those findings. This judgment of the Apex Court has no application to the present case. Similar is the position in respect of other decisions also. The present case is similar to the case of Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1996 (82 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akes no difference to the sustainability of penalty, since that section relates only to the quantum of penalty and not to liability to penalty. We are satisfied that in the deliberate nature of the offence, a penalty equivalent to the duty amount is not excessive at all. Further Section 112 permits penalty not exceeding the value of the goods. 10.We find merit in the appellant's submission with regard to imposition of redemption fine. In the present case, the goods are not available for confiscation. Nor had they been originally cleared against a bond. In such a case, the law does not permit imposition of redemption fine as held by us in the Ram Khazana Electronic Ors. v. CC, AIR Cargo, Jaipur (Supra). 11.In the view we have taken abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
