The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has viewed the misdeclaration of the brand on import documents of paper cup machine due to erroneous dispatch by the supplier and set aside the Confiscation under the Customs Act,1962
M/s.Jain & Sons, the Appellant is a proprietorship concern of Mr Pankaj Jain situated at Jaipur. The Appellant regularly imports paper cup machines for resale in India. The machines are mainly imported from China. There is another proprietary concern namely M/s.Tradewell, Prop. Mrs. Sonal Jain w/o Mr. Pankaj Jain. Mr Pankaj Jain manages the affairs of M/s.Tradewell as its C.O.O.
It appeared that the revenue have earlier booked a case of undervaluation and misdeclaration against M/s. Tradewell for import of similar goods /paper cup machines. Goods imported vide Bill of Entry dated 31.10.2015 by M/s. Tradewell was seized and a show cause notice was issued.
The DRI officials conducted an enquiry concerning Bill of Entry No. 5275518 dated 16th May 2016 (filed at ICD-Garhi Harsaru by the appellant) concerning the import of 16 paper cup machines at the declared value of US D 80,000 (USD 5,000 per machine) equivalent to ₹ 54,86,759/-, duty liability of ₹ 14,50,055/-.
It appeared to Revenue that the machines were under-invoiced. Accordingly, the machines were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act and a search was conducted at the residential premises of the proprietor, Shri Pankaj Jain.
The Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to reject the appeal observing that the appellant challenged the findings of the Adjudicating Authority on technical grounds without producing any documentary evidence to claim that the declared value was correct. Further, observed that Revenue was not required to prove its case with mathematical precision and also observed that various circumstantial pieces of evidence indicate misdeclaration and under-valuation.
It was viewed that there is no mismatch in the data contained in the bill of entry filed by the appellant and the import documents viz. bill of lading, invoice, etc. The appellant stated that he had ordered TW-D16 machines whereas the supplier has erroneously dispatched the DEBAO D-16 model machines. The error has been admitted by the shipper/exporter, which fact is not untrue.
On the allegation of sending money to the Chinese supplier of differential amount through Hawala, the single-member bench comprising Mr Anil Choudhary, (Judicial) observed that Revenue failed to examine Shri Tarun Baid in the adjudication proceedings and also failed to offer its witnesses for cross-examination. The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
