The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai held that charges on undervaluation and misdeclaration of goods are not sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Shri Hormaz Daruwalla appeared for the Appellant and Shri R.K. Dwivedy appeared for the Respondent.
The appellant, M/s My dream Properties Pvt. Ltd had imported the goods, described as “Brand New Azimut 68 Motor Yachtwith Accessories” from Italy and filed the Bill of Entry before the jurisdictional Customs authorities for duty assessment and clearance of the said imported consignments. The Bill of Entry was recalled and an examination was conducted by the officers of the Central Intelligence Unit (CIU). The Bill of Entry in question was provisionally assessed for want of the relevant import documents.
The department based on a detailed investigation concluded that the appellant had mis-declared the description of the imported goods in respect of its model as well as actual value, which resulted in evasion of legitimate customs duty payable on higher import price for the imported goods yacht of model ‘Azimut 68 Evolution’, instead of model ‘Azimut68’, as declared in the subject Bill of Entry.
The appellant submitted the documentary evidenceand it was clear that non-mentioning the code or word ‘E’ or ‘Evolution’ in the above documents was inconsequential and had no effect on the aspect of valuation of imported goods for assessment of the correct duty liability. The Revenue has not made out any case of misdeclaration and consequentialundervaluation of the yacht.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was not maintainable as the charge of misdeclaration and undervaluation of the yachtfalls flat, confiscation and penalties imposed also did not survive.
It was observed that the appellant had not submitted any documentary evidenceabout the purchase of the said goods and the determination of the value of such goods under Rule 9 was justified. held that differential duty along with interest in the impugned order on the said goods is proper and justified and are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (l)
The personal penalty imposed on the other appellants in respect of the goods ‘V-SAT connection with dish antenna’ cannot also be sustained since the impugned order has not specifically dealt with the issue regarding the involvement of those personsin the importation of such goods.
Mr S K Mohanty, member (judicial) Mr P Anjani Kumar, member (technical)upheld the impugned order to the extent ofdemand of duty on the V-sat antennaand the appeal was partly allowedset aside penalties imposed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentBuy books of essential tax practice with exciting offers at shopscan.in
