Page 172 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

850 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Valuation (Customs) - Exemption privilege not claimed - In such case,
valuation has to be done under Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of
Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. [para 35]
Misdeclaration - Overvaluation - Established with money flow to ben-
eficiaries, other than seller - It justifies invocation of Section 111(m) of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 - Any other circumstantial evidence that justifies invocation of
Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 is
insufficient. [para 33]
Redemption fine and penalty - Imposition of - Imported goods as-
sessed at ‘nil’ value and shipper on record is non-existent - In such case, re-
demption fine cannot be determined on scrap value and penalty imposed on
non-existent entity - Sections 112 and 125 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 3]
Re-import - Proof of - It must be evidenced by export. [para 36]
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Disposal of - Appeal of employees of
importer against penalty imposed on them - Importer was before High Court
and not before Tribunal - HELD : Disposal of employees appeals would not be
premature - Appeals of employees could not be kept pending to await conven-
ience/contingency of importer’s appeal - It was immaterial that penalties were
inextricably linked to confiscability, and during disposal of appeal, Tribunal
could refer to legal and procedural aspects how imported goods should have
been dealt with - Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962. [para 2]
Appeal against penalty - Prerequisites of competence and proportion-
ately with gravitas has to be satisfied - Hence, on appeal against penalty im-
posed on employees of importer company, arguments on confiscation have to
be looked into even if employees did not have locus for quashing of confisca-
tion. [para 15]
Appeal - Grounds - On questions of law settled after adjudication or-
der - They are substantially different from fresh ground of facts. [para 24]
Appeal - Grounds - Legal submissions cannot be denied admissibility
even if raised for first time. [para 2]
Adjudication - Scope of - It is not restricted to facts elicited in investi-
gation - It can fill missing gaps - However, opportunity has to be given for de-
fence/counter for what was not stated in show cause notice. [para 6]
Penalty - Imposition of - Finding of overvaluation based on proximate
value without any record that importer was beneficiary of money flows
- HELD : Penalty was unsustainable - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determi-
nation of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Section 112 of Customs Act,
1962. [para 31]
Penalty - Quantification of - ‘Nil’ value - Determined based on utility
of goods to importer which is conceptually repugnant valuation of goods - In
such case, penalties are unsustainable - Sections 14 and 112 of Customs Act,
1962. [para 34]
Penalty - Imposition of - On employees of importer for allegedly fabri-
cating purchase order that was not required to be furnished with bills of
entry - HELD : Penalty was unsustainable - Document did not have any signif-
icance under Sections 14, 46 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. [para 34]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  172