Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sesa Sterlite Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Aircargo), ... on 9 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/MISC/40023/2016 and C/41987/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.562/2013,dated21.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai]
M/s. SESA STERLITE LTD.
APPELLANT
(currently changed as M/s. Vedanta Ltd)
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRCARGO), CHENNAI
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Kannan, Adv.
For the Respondent Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 09-03-2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 40438 / 2016 There is no objection of Revenue for amendment of cause title which should be read as M/s. Vedanta Ltd. instead of M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. Prayer is allowed. Miscellaneous application is disposed of accordingly.
2. Learned counsel also says that it is finding of the learned authority below that there was no mens rea involved in the case. In one of the invoices, the exporter had not stated value of import for which the appellant was prevented to declare that in the bill of entry. Once such a finding exists, redemption fine should not be imposed. So also, there shall not be penalty.
3. Revenue on the other hand supports adjudication.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. No doubt, there was a confiscation made in view of misdeclaration of the value of the goods but the facts and circumstance of the case suggests that prior to clearance of the goods, while the goods were in bonded warehouse, the error committed in disclosing the proper value of the import was disclosed by appellant to Customs and appropriate duty there on was paid. Learned Adjudicating Authority opined that there was no mens rea involved in this case.
6. Anything not declared to customs no doubt is circumscribed by intention. The authority did not deal with the circumstances thoroughly as to how the benefit of doubt should go to the importer. He has not at all examined thoroughly the purchase order of the appellant to understand what was the goods ordered and terms of import. But he has recorded that two purchase orders made the export to reach India under Invoice No.USIO/BNo1/2552251, dated 07.11.2012and the Invoice No.USIO/BN01/2552138, dated 06.11.2012. At the request of the appellant, the invoice dated 06.11.2012 was valued by Customs since value of the goods described therein was not declared to Customs. The value of this invoice being disclosed at the time of filing of bill of entry it appears that misdeclaration was made by the appellant. Looking to the gravity of section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, this is not a justifiable case to exonerate the appellant from redemption fine and penalty fully. Therefore, it is considered proper that while the goods were in bonded warehouse and proper duty was realised it is proper to order redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and penalty of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) in the interest of justice. It is ordered accordingly. Appeal is allowed partly. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr 09-03-2016 DRAFT Remarks I II III Date of dictation 09.03.2016 Draft Order - Date of typing 09.03.2016 Fair Order Typing 09.03.2016 Date of number and date of dispatch 10.03.2016 2 C/MISC/40023/2016 and C/41987/2013