Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commnr. Of Customs ... vs M/S R.K.International And Ors. on 2 August, 2017
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, L. Nageswara Rao, Navin Sinha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10347-10392 OF 2011
COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S R.K.INTERNATIONAL AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material.
2. The appellant, Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai had set the law into motion by issuing a show cause notice dated 13.12.1994 alleging that in respect of consignment imported into the country under Bill of Entry No.F-4316 there was a mis-declaration of the imported goods by the importer - M/s. Ram Metal Industries. There were three addendas to the aforesaid show cause notice, dated 23.04.1998, 15.05.1998 and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2017.08.12 10:21:35 IST 25.08.1998. In the aforesaid show cause notice Reason: similar allegations were levelled with regard 2 to import by two other entities i.e M/s. Natraj Metals and M/s. R.K. International under Bill of Entry Nos. F-4120 and 3058 dated 21.07.1993 and 04.06.1993 respectively. It was further alleged in the show cause notice that the importers mentioned in the Bill of Entry were mere name-lenders and not the real persons who had made the imports. Accordingly, confiscation of the goods was proposed along with levy of penalty and the duty payable. This was notwithstanding the fact that the goods imported under Bill of Entries No.F-4120 and 3058 had been cleared and only the goods imported against Bill of Entry No.4316 was available and accordingly seized.
3. The adjudicating authority, namely, Commissioner of Customs, on consideration of the replies to the show cause sent by the noticees and after hearing the parties, found that the show cause notice in respect of Bill of Entry Nos. F-4120 and 3058 to be unsustainable. Insofar as the Bill of Entry No.4316 is concerned, the adjudicating authority held one-Solly Perumal, Customs 3 House Agent, to be responsible and made him liable for payment of penalty of Rs.25 lakhs.
4. In appeal, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (now Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) by its impugned order dated 25.06.2003 maintained the order of the adjudicating authority insofar as the goods imported against Bill of Entry Nos F-4120 and 3058 are concerned. Insofar as the goods imported under Bill of Entry No.4316 is concerned, the learned Tribunal found another noticee - Om Prakash Punjabi also to be liable for payment of penalty of Rs. 50 lacs. The learned Tribunal, however, reduced the penalty imposed on Solly Perumal from 25 lacs to 5 lacs. Aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal upon grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
5. At the very outset, we do not see why instead of filing an appeal before the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Revenue has chosen to file a special leave application seeking leave to challenge 4 the order of the learned Tribunal. The very fact that the Revenue has sought special leave to appeal against the order of the learned Tribunal would be suggestive of the fact that the Revenue concedes that the matter does not involve an issue relating to rate of duty or classification of goods in which event(s) the Revenue had the option to come to this Court in a regular appeal against the order of the learned Tribunal.
6. Be that as it may, naturally, this Court would expect serious and substantial question(s) of law arising from the order of the learned Tribunal to be agitated by the Revenue before this Court. Even on this score the Revenue has failed to satisfy the Court inasmuch as the learned Tribunal, which is the last fact finding authority, in its impugned order dated 25.08.2003, has held that insofar as the Bill of Entry Nos. F-4120 and 3058 are concerned, there is lack of conclusive proof with regard to actual identification of ball bearings. Coincidentally, the case of the Revenue was/is that the imported goods were 5 declared as lead scrap whereas the goods actually imported were ball bearings attracting a higher rate of duty.
7. The learned Tribunal in paragraph 70 of its order further held that the Revenue had failed to prove the presence of ball bearings in the two consignments covered by the aforesaid two Bill of Entries. Insofar as the liability for goods imported under Bill of Entry No.4316 in the name of M/s. Ram Metal Industries is concerned, on an similar appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has held that in addition to Solly Perumal, there is one Om Prakash Punjabi who also ought to be held liable. The entire findings of the learned Tribunal including the liability imposed on the aforesaid two persons, which have not been challenged by them before this Court, is on a pure appreciation of the evidence and materials on record. The learned Tribunal being the last forum for determination of questions of fact and no perversity in the appreciation of the materials being discernible from the order of 6 the learned Tribunal, we do not see how these appeals can be scrutinized any further. Neither do we find any substantial question of law in the appeals which would require to be authoritatively answered by this Court. We, therefore, do not find the order of the learned Tribunal to be, in anyway, open to correction. Consequently, we dismiss the appeals of Revenue and affirm the order dated 25.06.2003 passed by the learned Tribunal.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO) ...................,J.
(NAVIN SINHA)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 02, 2017
7
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.4 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10347-10392/2011
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION)MUMBAI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S R.K.INTERNATIONAL AND ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 02-08-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashok Panda, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv.
For Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. George Thomas, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Udit Jain, Adv.
Mr. Somnath Shukla, Adv. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv. Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Aparna Jha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (MADHU NARULA)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)