Page 20 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

xviii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Misdeclaration (Contd.)
invocation of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported
Goods) Rules, 2007 is insufficient — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General
(Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ........................... 849
— Proof of - Self-exculpatory statement of importer about knowledge of
discrepancy in description of product obtained on interactions with
shipper - No other evidence on record to substantiate involvement of
importer - HELD : Misdeclaration was not proved - Section 111(f) of
Customs Act, 1962 — Vallabh Wool Industries v. Commr. of Cus. (Export), Nhava
Sheva (Tri. - Mumbai) .................................. 888
Misdeclaration charge based on presumed relationship between exporter
and importer not sustainable - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ..... 849
Money flow to beneficiaries and consequent overvaluation established,
confiscation sustainable - See under MISDECLARATION ............ 849
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 :
— Section 50 - See under PROSECUTION ...................... 817
Non-speaking order of Tribunal not sustainable - See under APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL’S ORDER ................................ 826
Notified goods, scope of maintainability of settlement application - See
under SETTLEMENT APPLICATION ....................... 840
Offence of duty evasion on Gold is bailable offence - See under BAIL ....... 830
Online Quiz Game, permissibility after introduction of GST law - See under
QUIZ GAME ..................................... 835
Order of High Court - Interpretation thereof - Respondents plea that
Settlement Commission had followed order of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in deciding Settlement Application is misconceived inasmuch as
High Court never decided on maintainability of application - Well settled
that an order passed by a Court cannot be so interpreted as permitting a
statutory authority to act in violation of statute - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Principal Additional Director General, DRI v. Customs,
Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission (Del.) ................. 840
— passed by a Court cannot be so interpreted as permitting a statutory
authority to act in violation of statute - See under ORDER ........... 840
Overvaluation established with money flow to beneficiaries, confiscation
sustainable - See under MISDECLARATION ................... 849
PENALTY :
— and Confiscation on non-fulfillment of export obligation under EPCG,
scope of order by Customs when DGFT’s order is in favour of assessee -
See under EXIM ................................... 847
— for misuse of IE Code - Reduction of - Fraudulent import of chemicals in
name of IE Code lent by proprietor of company for consideration - Rajesh
Pravinchandra Joshi, Proprietor of M/s. Ravi Enterprises; accepting that
IEC applied with intention to lend same for monetary consideration -
Also, NOC prepared by importer in name of M/s. Ravi Enterprises so
that amendment in IGM to change name of importer, could be carried
out - Involvement of proprietor limited to extent of lending IEC to other
importers for consideration - Penalty levied cannot be comparable to
penalty imposed on actual perpetrators of offence - Penalty imposed
reduced to ` 20,000 - Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 — Naresh Dudhela v.
Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II (Tri. - Mumbai) ................ 881
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  20