Page 21 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] INDEX - 15th June, 2020 xix
Penalty (Contd.)
— imposed on employees of importer company, scope of appeal to Tribunal
when importer’s case pending before High Court - See under APPEAL .... 849
— Imposition of - Exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. based on
Indian origin of goods, had no duty implication - Such declaration in bill
of entry has no consequence - Hence penalty is not sustainable under
Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General
(Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) .......................... 849
— 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
(Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Section 112 of
Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai
(Tri. - Mumbai) ..................................... 849
— Imposition of - Incorrect statement in import general manifest with
fraudulent intention - Importer is not liable to penalty - Sections 30(iii)
and 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 — Vallabh Wool Industries v. Commr. of Cus.
(Export), Nhava Sheva (Tri. - Mumbai) .......................... 888
— Imposition of - On employees of importer for allegedly fabricating
purchase order that was not required to be furnished with bills of entry -
HELD : Penalty was unsustainable - Document did not have any
significance under Sections 14, 46 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 — S.
Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ......... 849
— Imposition of - With reference to value adopted for redemption of
confiscated goods - It is unsustainable for penalty under Section 114AA
of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I.,
Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................................. 849
— 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 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ... 849
— Reduction of - Fraudulent import of chemicals - Shri Naresh M. Dudhela
arranging various IECs including that of M/s. Ravi Enterprises for
monetary consideration and receiving consideration of 1.5% of value in
return - Since, no specific allegations of his role other than arranging for
IEC of M/s. Ravi Enterprises, brought on record, case requires
reconsideration of quantum of penalty - Penalty imposed reduced to
` 25,000 - Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 — Naresh Dudhela v. Commissioner
of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II (Tri. - Mumbai) ...................... 881
— Respondent 2 viz. Shri Santosh Nair working for foreign suppliers as
Indian representative and issued Proforma Invoice as instructed by his
principal - Proforma issued by Respondent 2 not even the basis for filing
the import documents and, therefore, not relevant for imposition of
penalty - In fact said Proforma invoice never the part of the import
documentation, though it was part of negotiation documents between the
foreign supplier and the Importer in India - Respondent 2 not abetted in
the evasion of the Customs duty by misdeclaring the value for purpose of
imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act,
1962 — Commissioner of Customs (Imp.), ACC, Mumbai v. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd. (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 878

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  21