Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. 5994464 02/07/ 100 S-90 Model 84709010 5 97 Chinta 2014 + GPRS + Haran ID barcode Ojha Terminal S-900 GPRS + RF 84709010 3 97 Terminal Software licence of 84732900 3 1235 S90 + S900
3. 6221058 24/07/ 100 S-90 GPRS 84709010 3 97 Chinta 2014 (Still Terminal Haran lying (Barcode Ojha uncleared Terninal) as the D-180 BTH 84709010 3 60 importer Terminal has not D-210 84709010 3 97 given reply GPRS to the Terminal query raised by S-58 Dial + 84709010 3 60 the IP Terminal department S-900 till date) GPRS 84709010 3 100 Terminal Software licence kit 84732900 1 1503

Apart from these 12 Bills of entry the appellant has imported two more consignments covered by Bill of Entry No. 3851878 dated 8 January 2016 and Bill of Entry No. 3851698 also dated 08 January 2016.

13. It is also a matter of record that two Bills of Entry both dated 8 January 2016 are live Bills of Entry which are pending for clearance. It is an admitted fact that M/s Pax Technologies Pvt. Ltd. appellant - importer has been appointed sole distributors of MPOS (Mobile Point of Sale) devices and POS (Point of Sale) devices by Pax Technology Ltd., Hongkong in India. Ms. Latha Priyadarshini one of the appellant in these appeals, is an active director of M/s Pax Technologies India and looks after the entire work of importation, marketing of the imported products, etc. It has come out very categorically from the investigations conducted by the Department that Ms. Latha Priyadarshini was fully aware about the nature of the goods being imported by her in the name of her company. She was also well aware as to how much was the value of the hardware of the machine and how much was the value of the software required for the purpose of successful operation and functioning of these machines. She was also aware that the type of the equipments imported by their company required ETA (Equipment Type Approval) from Wireless Planning and Coordination Wing of Ministry of Communication and Information Technology‟s as per the prevailing Import Export Policy. These machines/equipments also needed approval and registration from Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The appellant namely Ms. Latha Priyadarshini was also aware that since the imports are being made from their related company based in Hongkong, the imports needed registration/clearance from Special Valuation Branch of Customs Department for their 26 CUS/52445 of 2018 legitimate importation. Ms. Latha Priyadarshini with the help of certain other persons made plan to circumvent the provisions of Import Export Policy requirements as well as scrutiny from Special Valuation Branch of the Customs by resorting to mis- declaration of the import consignment of MPOS/POS in connivance of the various persons. These persons are also appellant before us in this matter. We have taken note of the fact that Shri Rajinder Madhok in his statement has categorically mentioned that Ms. Latha Priyadarshini alongwith Shri Sanjeev Sharma has met him and made certain enquiries with regard to formalities pertaining to Special Valuation Branch and in the discussion she has also asked as to how the provisions of Special Valuation Branch can be bye-passed. Thereafter with connivance of several other persons she has mis-declared the basic details of the import consignments including the description of the import consignments.

14. A glance at the table mentioned in the preceding para No. 11 reveals that the MPOS machines were mis-declared as paper rolls/bar code reader and in some of the Bills of Entry the description of import consignment has been given as "S-90 model and paper with printing and payment debit/credit device". We find that a Master Distributor Agreement has been signed between M/s Pax Technologies, Hongkong and M/s Pax Technologies, India which makes the Indian arm a sole master distributor of Hongkong based companies products namely various models of „Mobile Point of Sale/Point of Sale devices‟. The master distributor agreement has an Appendix I which provides the transfer prices of various models of MPOS alongwith the prices of software, which is essential component for functioning of the MPOS devices. When the prices as given in the Appendix A to the master distributor agreement are compared with the declared import prices of the import consignments, we find that the declared prices of imported consignments of the various models of MPOS/POS have drastically been mis-declared. The 27 CUS/52445 of 2018 only defence which has been taken by the appellant - importer and its director Ms. Latha Priyadarshini is that they have been cheated by various Customs House Agents and for which a First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged by the importing company in a Police Station. We do not find any leg to this defence as it has come out very categorically that she was fully aware about the statutory requirements of the Customs Act, Import Export Policy for legitimate import of MPOS consignments as well as the price structure (various models of the MPOS/POS). She was aware about the correct prices of MPOS/POS imported by her and her company as the agreement of distribution between the company and the foreign supplier has been signed by her. We find that the appellant - importer has given varied description for the import item namely Mobile Point of Sale (MPOS)/Point of Sale (POS). The descriptions of the import goods which we find in the Bills of Entry are actually in utter disregard to the provisions of Customs Act and indicate that the import consignments were being described to the whim and fancy as well as convenience of the appellant - importer, its active Director and clearing agents. It can be seen from the table given in the preceding para that in some of the Bills of Entry the consignment has been described as "S-90 GPRS + ID BAR CODE TERMINAL" classified under 84709010 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; in two Bills of Entry the consignment has been described as D-200 Terminal (Mobile payment terminal - Dummy sample) classified under Customs Tariff Heading 90230050; in one Bills of Entry No. 2094937 dated 31/07/2015 goods have been described only as "S-90" and classified under Customs Tariff Heading 48237090 (which pertains to articles of paper). In the other Bills of Entry also goods have similarly been mis-declared as "paper for printing in payment debit/credit device, paper rolls, parts of plastic (the description given in the live Bills of Entry).