Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1. The test report of CRCL confirmed that the goods under import were zinc ingots of prima quality and their purity was 99.9%.

4.2. Investigation also revealed that the weight of the consignment was higher at 2.69.790 Mts as against the declared weight of 201.868 Mts.

5. In the light of the evidence obtained during investigations, the customs authorities issued show cause notice dated 23.12.99 alleging that the importers had wilfully mis-declared the description, weight and quantity of the goods with intention to evade payment of Customs duty. The customs authorities also alleged that correct value of the goods would be 1014 US$ PMT FOB and that the value of US$ 575 had been mis-declared alongwith false description of the nature of the goods in order to evade payment of full customs duty. The show cause notice alleged that goods are liable to confiscation under section 111(1) and (m) of the Customs Act 1962, the parties to the mis-declaration liable to penalty under Section 112 and Section 114A of the same Act and the duty of about Rs. 45 lakhs which had been short levied recoverable under Section 28 of the Customs Act. In the adjudication proceedings the parties denied the allegations. However, based on the evidence obtained from the examination of the goods (stickers and quality certificates), the CRCL certificate and the evidence tendered by the parties, the impugned order upheld the allegation of mis-declaration of the goods, fixed the value of the goods at 1014 US $ PMT FOB and assessable value was accordingly, fixed at about Rs. 1.25 crores. The correct duty payable was found to be about rs. 76.5 lacs a against the duty already paid of Rs. 31.6 lacs. Thus the impugned order held that there was evasion of duty to the tune of about Rs. 45 lacs. The impugned order confiscated the imported goods under section 111(I)&(m) the Customs Act, fixed a redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs. The order also imposed penalty equal to the duty evaded on M/s Hindustan Overseas under Section 114A of the Customs Act. Personal penalties have also been imposed on S/Shri P.K. Jain, R.K. Jain, Ram Pal Banwari Lal, Satbir Singh and Sanjay Sharma under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The present appeals have been filed against this order.

9. As against the above submission of the appellants S/Shri Banwari Lal, Satbir Singh and Shri Ram Pal and the learned Counsel for S/Shri P.K. Jain, R.K. Jain and Sanjay Sharma, the ld. SDR has submitted that evidence in this case has clearly unravelled a huge fraud committed on the Revenue. The charge of mis-declaration of the goods remains established by the stickers on the pallets, the quality certificate found in the containers and the examination report of the CRCL. The mis-declarations have also been admitted to by the Jain Brothers. The evidence on record has established that the Jain Brothers got the goods and their value mis-declared on the suppliers' documents by foreign suppliers who are connected to them, they arranged to have false declaration filed before the Customs, and got the evidence regarding nature and quality of the goods removed from part of the consignment. he, therefore submitted that the impugned order is fully justified in the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of penalties.

10. The offence of mis-declaration of the goods in the Customs documents with regard to their nature, weight and value remains clearly established by the evidence on record. The black cards and quality certificates found alongwith the goods in the six un-opened containers clearly established that the goods are actually zinc ingots of high purity and quality contrary to their description in the customs documents as zinc slab sull(SIC) i.e. zinc waste & scrap. Their purity is also established by the test report of the goods at the Customs Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL). The statement of persons involved with the offence also confirm the mis-declaration of the description of the goods with intend to evade payment of duty. The weight of the goods had also been declared less by about 70 MTS. The value of the consignment had also been grossly under declared. Therefore, there could be no serious challenge to the confiscation of the goods and the higher duty demand or imposition of penalties on the persons concerned with the fraud. Infact, none of the appellants has challenged the findings on duty demand or confiscation of the goods. They are aggrieved only by the imposition of penalties.

12. The appeal of Shri P.K. Jain has not been pressed. 'the contention on behalf of the Sh. R.K. Jain is that he is not involved in the fraud but has been joined as a party because of his being a brother of Shri P.K. Jain. We find that this submission is entirely contrary to evidence on record. The business activities of M/s Hindustan Overseas are carried out from Sh. R.K. Jains premises. All the connected parties have stated that Shri R.K. Jain is fully involved in the activities of M/s Hindustan Overseas. The bankers of M/s Hindustan Overseas have confirmed that the account of the firm was operated by Shri R.K. Jain also. Shri R.K. Jain has himself stated that the foreign suppliers were connected to him and the foreign suppliers made available invoice and other documents after mis-declaration of particulars regarding quality and value of the goods in the import documents as directed by him. The clearing agent has also stated that Shri R.K. Jain had given him directions. In these circumstances, we are clear that Shri R.K. Jain has personally participated in the fraud and has to share the responsibility for the same.