Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Umesh Advani vs Commissioner Of Customs (Acc & Import), ... on 16 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. C/433 & 434/08-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Original CAO No. CC/NS/17/08-Adj.ACC dated 18.3.2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Umesh Advani Appellant Shankarlal Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Import), Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri C.S. Biradar, Advocate, for 1st appellant Shri V.N. Ansurkar, Advocate, for 2nd appellant Shri M.S. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 16.7.2014 Date of Decision: 16.7.2014 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang
The appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), whereby penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- is imposed on the appellant Shri Umesh Advani and penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- is imposed on the appellant Shri Shankarlal Sharma, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the goods imported by M/s. Sonu International were examined by the Customs authorities and it was found that the importer described the goods as unbranded whereas the goods were found to be of Philips brand. During investigation it was found that earlier four consignments of similar goods were imported by M/s. R.R. Exports. Statement of Shri Rajendra Doshi, proprietor of M/s. R.R. Exports, was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, whereby he stated that the four consignments were imported by one Shri Shankarlal Sharma and Shri Manu Advani by using his firms name and IEC code. The statements of Shri Shankarlal Sharma and Shri Manu Advani were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act whereby they admitted that the goods were imported under the name of M/s. R.R. Exports. However, the same were unbranded goods and appropriate duty has already been paid. Enquiries were made from M/s. National Shipping Agency, Custom House Agent of M/s. R.R. Exports. Shri Manish R. Sangani, partner of the CHA, in his statement admitted that the goods imported by M/s. R.R. Exports were dealt with by them and all the documents for clearance were received either from Shri Shankarlal Sharma or Shri Manu Advani. The draft in respect of the customs duty was also deposited by Shri Shankarlal Sharma. The CHA also admitted that the goods were branded goods whereas the same were declared by the importer as unbranded. On this evidence, show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs.15,94,827/- and for imposition of penalties.
3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties.
4. The contention of the appellant is that the importer is M/s. R.R. Exports and the appellant, Shri Shankarlal Sharma, only introduced Shri Umesh Advani to the proprietor of M/s. R.R. Exports. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant Shri Shankarlal Sharma has previous knowledge regarding misdeclaration of goods imported in the name of M/s. R.R. Exports. The contention on behalf of the appellant, Shri Umesh Advani, is also that the unbranded goods were imported and there is no evidence on record to show that the goods in question were branded goods. The appellant produced copy of a communication received from the supplier to show that the goods were unbranded goods hence the penalties are not sustainable.
5. The Revenue relied upon the findings of the adjudicating authority. The contention of the Revenue is also that the appellants approached the Settlement Commission to settle the dispute and before the Settlement Commission the appellants admitted the full duty as demanded by the Revenue and also admitted that the appellants are the actual importer in respect of the goods which are imported in the name of M/s. R.R. Exports. The appellants also accepted and admitted all allegations and charges contained in the show cause notice. The Revenue submitted that the Settlement Commission rejected their applications on the ground that the bills of entry were filed in the name of M/s. R.R. Exports and M/s. R.R. Exports has not filed any application to settle the dispute.
6. The contention of the Revenue is that in view of the admission made before the Settlement Commission, the appellants have no case hence the impugned order is rightly passed.
7. We find that the appellants are not disputing the fact that the goods were imported in the name of M/s. R.R. Exports. As per the statement of the partner of the CHA, the documents were handed over by the appellant Shri Shankarlal Sharma. Customs duty was also paid by Shri Shankarlal Sharma. During investigation also, Shri Shankarlal Sharma paid Rs.9,00,000/- towards the duty. The only contention of the appellant Shri Umesh Advani is that the goods in question were unbranded goods and there is no evidence on record to show that the same were branded goods hence penalty is not sustainable.
8. We find that on receipt of the show cause notice, both the appellants approached the Settlement Commission whereby the appellants admitted their liability on the ground that the appellants are the actual importers and also accepted and admitted the allegations and charges made in the show cause notice. In view of the admission made by both the appellants before a statutory authority i.e. the Settlement Commission regarding misdeclaration of the goods imported in the name of M/s. R.R. Exports, we find no merit in the contention of the appellants. The appeals are dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 2