The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that mere non-mentioning of words or phrases does not constitute suppression of material facts and set-asides order confirming differential duty demand.
The appellant, M/s Mydream Properties Pvt. Ltd had imported the goods, described as “Brand New Azimut 68 Motor Yacht with Accessories” from Italy. Customs department has inferred that the declared import price of the imported good did not appear genuine and accordingly confirmed the differential duty demand along with interest under the proviso to Section 28(1) and 28AB respectively of the Customs Act, 1962; confiscation of the subject goods, with an option to redeem the same and for the imposition of penalties on the appellant’s company, including the other appellants involved in these cases.
On appeal, the Tribunal set asides the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the original authority. The original authority took up de-novo adjudication proceedings and confirmed the allegation. The Commissioner also confirmed that there is a misdeclaration of value and the same is liable to be rejected. The aggrieved appellant approached CESTAT.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no mis-declaration as Purchase Order, Invoice, and Bill of Entry, all contain a detailed description of the higher version of Azimut 68 Yacht, i.e. Evolution; the User’s Manual, admittedly on board the Yacht, presented for inspection clearly stated that the Yacht is of the higher version, Evolution.
The Tribunal observed that the capacity ‘2xMAN 1360mHP’ applicable for evolution type, was specifically indicated in the bill of entry. Mere non-mentioning of the words/Phrase ‘E’ or ‘Evolution’ would in no way constitute suppression of material facts more so, the details are available in the documents submitted along with the Bill of Entry and it had no effect on the aspect of valuation of imported goods for assessment of the correct duty liability.
The Coram of Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) has held that “we are of the considered opinion that in so far as the valuation of the yacht is concerned, Revenue has not made out any case of misdeclaration and consequential undervaluation of the same. Therefore, we find no merit in the re-determination of the value of the yacht and confirmation of differential duty thereon. To this extent, we find that the impugned order is not maintainable. As the charge of misdeclaration and undervaluation of the yacht falls flat, confiscation and penalties imposed also do not survive. Accordingly, the same is set aside”.
Mr. Hormaz Daruwalla, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. R.K. Dwivedy appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
