Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Gretex Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export) Nhava ... on 14 March, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO APPEAL NO. C/1017 & 1018/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. SD/INT/NSPU/18/06 R & I S/16-DEEC-GEN-4099/07 VII-D dt. 13.08.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) Nhava Sheva. For approval and signature: Hon'ble Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : 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 : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : authorities? ============================================================= M/s. Gretex Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant Mr. T.N. Mulani VS Commissioner of Customs (Export) Nhava Sheva Respondent Appearance Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate for Appellant Shri Hitesh Shah, Authorized Representative (SDR) CORAM: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of decision 14/03/08 ORDER NO.................................................... Per : Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. SD/INT/NSPU/18/06 R & I S/16-DEEGEN-4099/07 VII-D dt. 13.08.2007.
2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellant imported and declared the goods as knitted fabrics. The said consignment was put to examination and it was noticed that there was a misdeclaration in both the consignment imported by the appellants, as regards the quantity of the goods as well as the value of the goods. Further it was also noticed that the appellant filed bill of entry under DEEC Scheme whereas he was not having advance licence for that particular goods, which were being imported. The show cause notice was issued. The appellants filed replies, the adjudicating authority after considering entire issue come to the conclusion that there was mis-declaration and non-declaration and hence accordingly confiscated the goods, with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 8 lakhs and imposed penalty on the appellant company as well as on the director of the company. Hence this appeal by the appellants.
3. The Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants have discharged duty liability as has been arrived on assessment of bills of entry. It is his submission that the benefit of DFRC licences was also given and hence imposition of redemption fine of Rs.8 lakhs is excessive. It is also his submission that the penalties imposed on the appellant company under the provisions of Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, is incorrect as the company is not person, but a corporate entities. He submits that some lenient view be taken and there may be reduction in the imposition of redemption fine and the penalties.
4. The Ld. SDR on the other hand would submit that there was a clear cut intention to evade the Customs duty amounting to Rs.16 lakhs. He draws our attention to the chart prepared of the individual Bill of Entry in which appellant did not declare correct contents in one bill of entry and in the case of second bill of entry in the case of second bill of entry few items were not declared at all. It is his submission that non-declaration is almost to the tune of 65% of the total quantity sought to be imported and cleared. It is his submission that it is absolutely a clear case to the evade the duties of Customs and hence the redemption fine and penalty imposed is correct and impugned order does not require any interference.
5. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. It is clearly held by the adjudicating authority that there was mis-declaration and non-declaration in the Bill of Entry. The Gravity of the mis-declaration and non-declaration is reproduced below (as held by adjudicating authority) "It is a fact that M/s. Gretex Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, had filed two Bills of Entry No.911720, dated 25.09.2006 (under DEEC Scheme) and no.899404, dated 14.09.2006 (under Duty Payment) for clearance of imported fabrics. However, on examination, certain mis-declaration/non-declaration were noticed by the department which are tabulated below:
Bill of Entry No. & Date As per Declaration Goods actually found on examination 911720/25.09.2006 29788 Sq.Mtrs. of fabrics made from PFY;GSM-124.6(AV=Rs.5,79,907/-)
i)5724 Sq.mtrs of knitted polyester fabric in 17 cartons.
ii)16956 Sq.mtrs of Dyed Woven Polyester Fabric of GSM more than 124.6 in 40 cartons
iii)1356 Sq. mtrs. Of Dyed Woven Double Layer Fabric in 5 cartons
iv)2744 Sq.mtrs. Piled Embroidered Dyed Woven Fabric in 16 cartons and
v)2592 pcs. Of Ladies Night Dresses of Polyester Fabric with 'Made in india' label. (under Panchnama dated 29.09.2006) Value =Rs.21,00,183/-
899404/14.09.2006 20497 Mtrs of Synthetic knitted fabrics (AV=Rs.3,91,900/-)
i)3735 mtrs. Of Synthetic Knitted Fabric in 15 cartons
ii)88 cartons containing 30899 Sq mtrs of woven polyester fabric
iii)3 cartons of 75 kgs of metallic yarn
iv)3240 pcs.of Ladies Night Dresses with Made in India label in 30 cartons.(under Panchnama dated 28.09.2006) on account of the above non-declaration (Value = Rs.1743697/-) It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that the appellants had not declared the correct quantity which has been imported by them and has also mis-declared the value. Appellant has not contradicted in any manner the above reproduced factual findings. It is not in dispute that the said value was considered for the assessment of the Bill of Entry and the duty was calculated which was deposited by the appellant. Considering the fact that the charge of mis-declaration and non-declaration is not being disputed by the appellant, further looking a the gravity of the case, I find that the appellants have not made out any case in their favour. hence to my mind, the impugned order of the adjudicating authority is correct and does not require any interference. The appeals are rejected.
(M. V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Sm 4