Deliberate Mis-Declaration and Overvaluation of Imports: CESTAT upholds Rejection of Duty Drawback and imposition of Penalties [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has upheld the rejection of duty drawback and imposition of penalties for deliberate mis-declaration and overvaluation of imports.

The appellants, M/s. Bhavana Jindal Exim Pvt. Ltd. and its director Mr. S.K. Jindal filed an appeal against the rejection of duty drawback and imposition of penalties under Section 114 (iii) and under Section 114 AA alleging that the appellant exported by deliberately misdeclaring the description and inflating the value of the goods for purpose of wrongly availing drawback. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal, hence the appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant himself had requested the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Export) for withdrawal of both of the consignments immediately after the goods which were delivered by the supplier was found not to be the same as the sample shown to the appellant before the delivery of the goods. Hence, the demand has wrongly been confirmed against the appellant.

The counsel further submitted that the alleged mis-declaration and overvaluation was an absolutely unintentional and non-deliberate act of the appellant as it was not in the knowledge of the appellant at the time of filing the shipping bills along with the requisite documents that the goods are old and used ones.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant praying withdrawal of the shipment/cargo that too on the ground of ‘order being cancelled by the buyer due to the late delivery, is deliberate concealment on the part of the appellant. Hence, the plea of innocence was nothing but an afterthought to cover up the mistake that the appellant had already committed i.e., misdeclaration of the goods and overvaluing them with the sole intention of availing a higher duty drawback.

The Coram of Dr. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) while deleting the appeal has held that “the plea of innocence as taken by the appellant that too solely based upon the letter dated 31.01.2017 has rightly been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals)”.

Ms. Priyanka Goel and Ms. Tamanna Alam appeared on behalf of the appellant and respondent respectively.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates