Valuation (Customs) — Undervaluation — Investigation reveals gross undervaluation through a fictitious invoice, revision of value by Customs 10% upwards, whether sustainable ? (2) Redemption fine — Penalty — Increase in redemption fine and penalty whether justifiable ?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed
Shah Mohammed Quadri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava on 2-9-2002 allowed interim stay to be continued of
the I.A. Nos. 13-16 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1389-1392 of 2002 filed by U.K.
Enterprises against the CEGAT Order Nos. 392-395/2001-A, dated 6-11-2001 and
reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 419 (Tri.
- Del.) (U.K. Enterprises v. Commissioner). While allowing interim
stay to continue, the Supreme Court passed the following order :-
“No
orders on I.A. Nos. 13-16/2002. Interim stay, as
ordered
on 18th February, 2002, shall continue.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned
order had held that investigations revealing under-valuation of goods entered
in a fictitious invoice of a Chinese party of Hong Kong to whom goods were
never sent, revision of value by Customs Authorities adding 10% to the value of
goods was sustainable.
The Tribunal further held that when evasion was elaborately
planned under a facade of shipment to a transit country and purchase therefrom
on a fictitious invoice, considering the gravity of offence, increase in
redemption fine from Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs and penalty on from Rs.
50,000/- to Rs. 10 lakhs is sustainable.
A report relating to the admission of said Civil Appeal C.A. Nos. 1389-1392 of 2002 was reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. A186 (S.C.).