A single member bench of CESTAT ( Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ) has held that the wrong mentioning of country of origin would not amount to misdeclaration unless men rea is proved. The bench held that detailed findings in relation to failure on the part of Revenue to either prove that goods had originated in Iran or prove role of the Asssessee in the alleged Mis-declaration.
The Assessee during the normal course of business had raised a purchase order on NBJ International FZ-LLC, Dubai, UAE for supply of Copper Cathode on CFR, Nhava Sheva. Accordingly, it was the duty of the supplier to supply the goods to the Buyer Assessee at the destination port viz, Nhava Sheva. Revenue found issue with the transactions made by the assessee and initiated proceedings against the assessee on the charge that they had misdeclared the country of origin of goods.
The assessee, M/s Amglo Resources Private Limited, challenges Order-in-Appeal dated 25.10.2023 by which penalties under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively have been imposed against the Appellant along with Redemption fine. Two other appeals have been filed by Mr. Vishal Amlani and Satish Amlani, the directors of the Company ( referred to as the Director and/or Directors ) against the same Order-in-Appeal dated 25.10.2023 imposing separate penalties on each of the directors under Sections 112(a) and 114(AA) of the Customs Act.
Assessee contended that finding of Appellants knowingly submitted forged COO certificates is without any basis and based on presumption and assumption. Assessee further contended that none of the activities viz., switching of BL, inspection of goods was done at the behest or within the knowledge of the assessee. The said activities form the basis of the proposed demand. Assessee contended that they undisputedly had a contract with the foreign supplier in Dubai who had supplied the goods as per the PO.
Revenue contended that the assessee had misdeclared the country of origin of goods as Zambia instead of Iran. Revenue further contended that since there is a sanction on financial institutes by the US relating to import of goods from Iran, the Appellant had declared the country of origin as Iran, as no financial institute could have provided the funds in US Dollars or have entered in providing financial support to the Appellant. Hence, the intention of providing the wrong country of origin was to circumvent the aforesaid US sanction.
The bench comprising Ramesh Nair ( Member, Judicial ) and Raju ( Member, Technical ) held that there is no change in duty payable in the case. The wrong mentioning of country of origin would not amount to misdeclaration unless men rea is proved. The bench observed that the imposition of penalties and redemption fine is not sustainable.
Assessee was represented by Jitu Motwani and Revenue was represented by S S Vikal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
