Page 174 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

852 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

possession to the ostensible supplier in Singapore for facilitating transfer of mon-
ey out of the country. The trajectory of the investigations, and the impugned
order, focuses on the doubtful provenance, the proximate superfluity, the inflat-
ed worth and the, of the ‘drawings’ to establish that the ploy was hatched solely
to enable the illegal transaction in money. The primary question, therefore, is the
scope afforded by Customs Act, 1962 to address this allegation.
2. On commencement of hearing, it was contended, on behalf of Reve-
nue, that, with the importer not having resorted to the appellate remedies availa-
ble under Customs Act, 1962, the confiscation of the imported goods was not
amenable to dissection by the Tribunal and that the final outcome should not, if
at all, extend beyond the legality of imposition of penalty which is the statutory
detriment attendant on those connected with acts of omission and commission
that led to confiscability of the imported goods. A miscellaneous application for
introduction of fresh grounds was also opposed vehemently as these had not
been agitated before the original authority. We do concur that the adjudicating
authority could not have been in possession of later judicial wisdom but, being
legal submissions, cannot be denied admissibility even if raised for the first time
in proceedings before us. The plea of Learned Authorized Representative that
disposal of the appeals would be premature as the importer is not before us, but
before the Hon’ble High Court, and may well approach the Tribunal in future
does not find favour with us as there is no reason to keep the appeals of these
individuals pending - more particularly, for reasons disclosed in the order direct-
ing early hearing - to await the convenience, or even the contingency, of appeal
by the importer. Understandably, we shall not be ruling on the confiscation itself
and intend to restrict ourselves to the role of the present appellants in relation to
the import of the goods that came to be confiscated in Order-in-Original No.
13/KVSS(13)ADG(ADJ)/DRI, MUMBAI/2016-17, dated 27th February, 2017 of
Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Mumbai. Not unnaturally, we may, in the course of disposal of these appeals
against penalties, which are inextricably linked to the confiscability of the goods,
refer to the legal and procedural aspects of import that may well throw light on
the manner in which the imported goods should have been dealt with.
3. A brief narration of the facts may not be out of place. It would ap-
pear that M/s. ABG Shipyard Ltd. had imported consignments of ‘drawing for
ship/yard’ along with the invoices, and other documents, issued by M/s.
Norcrane & Winch Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore for a value of US $ 104.62 mil-
lion claiming classification under Heading No. 4911 99 90 of the First Schedule to
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Of these, 12 were routed through Air Cargo Com-
plex, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport and 64 through Jawahar Custom
House, Nhava Sheva with a total value of ` 582,18,39,747 ascertained from the
declarations in the bills of entry or from the invoices. In the impugned order, all
the goods, whether entered for import under Section 46 or not, were ordered to
be revalued at ‘nil’ in accordance with Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determina-
tion of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and goods in 20 of these consign-
ments, yet to be cleared for home consumption, were confiscated under Section
111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of fine of
` 1,00,000 besides imposing various penalties under Section 112 and Section
114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on the importer in addition to imposing various
penalties on different individuals, including the present appellants, under Cus-
toms Act, 1962. Two elements of the operative portion of the impugned order are
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  174