The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai allowed the provisional release of Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha on depositing five crores in an iPhone smuggling case.
The consignment declared as ‘memory cards’ of different specifications also comprised 1826 nos. ‘iPhone 13 Pro’ of different specifications and that pertaining to another bill of entry declared as ‘memory cards’ of different specifications also comprised 1705 nos. ‘iPhone 13 Pro’ of different specifications.
The failure to disclose these phones was the bone of contention in the investigation as well as in the show cause notice issued thereafter and, according to the notice, the total value of both undeclared and declared goods in the two consignments is Rs 14,81,96,804.73 and Rs 12,86,96,766.83 respectively. The duty liability, arising from ‘integrated tax’ at 18% on the declared goods and of customs duty at 20%, besides cess at 10% thereof, with integrated tax at 18% on the undeclared phones amounts to Rs 5,88,19,004.85 and Rs 5,31,71,052 respectively.
The Counsel for the appellant, Prakash Shah submitted that they had been placed on notice of intent to confiscate the goods seized from a consignment imported in their name and that the adjudicating authority should not be permitted the luxury of taking different stands on the status of the importer to accommodate their purposes. It was also submitted that the goods are not usable in India and, having been wrongly shipped, must be sent back to the supplier or such person assigned by him.
The Counsel for the Respondent, Ramesh Kumar submitted that it was pointed out that the appellant had not been responding to summons issued by the investigation agency and that they had denied any connection with the goods. It was further pointed out that investigations had also revealed that the ostensible supplier denied having anything to do with the goods.
Highlighting the breach of faith placed in the appellant under the ‘trade friendly’ schemes of the Central Government, it was contended that salutary retribution is the only course of action. He urged us to uphold the decision to decline provisional release.
The Bench consisting of C J Mathew, Technical Member, and Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member held that “the impugned order declining provisional release is modified to allow provisional release upon execution of bond for the value of impugned goods and furnishing revenue deposit of ₹ 5,00,00,000 not later than seven days of service of this order.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan Premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
