Page 304 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

950 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Misdeclaration (Contd.)
— of goods not established, confiscation and penalty not sustainable - See
under CONFISCATION AND PENALTY ..................... 455
— Overvaluation - Established with money flow to beneficiaries, other than
seller - It justifies invocation of Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 -
Any other circumstantial evidence that justifies 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
— of value and description of food supplements, penalty imposable - See
under PENALTY .................................. 109
— 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
Mistake in shipping bill being inadvertent, amendment in shipping bill
allowed to claim MEIS benefits - See under MERCHANDISE EXPORTS
FROM INDIA SCHEME (MEIS) .......................... 660
Modification in Area based exemption scheme when clarificatory and
retrospective in operation - See under AREA BASED EXEMPTION ...... 495
Money Credit Scheme - Accumulated credit on abolishing of scheme -
Utilization - Revenue in response to assessee’s communication denying
utilization of credit ibid on ground that credit could have been utilized
for specified products only and not for other products - HELD : Apex
Court in case of Dai Itchi Karkaria in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.), and
subsequent judgments has held that Modvat credit could be utilised for
manufacture of any final product of same manufacturer - In view of
above, notwithstanding that aforesaid decision is not in respect of Money
Credit Scheme, department directed to consider petitioner’s request in
proper proceedings after hearing them and keeping in mind various
decisions of Apex Court and also decisions of this High Court on
aforesaid scheme - All issues kept open - Rule 57K of erstwhile Central
Excise Rules, 1944 - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Rasoi Ltd. v. Union
of India (Cal.) ...................................... 56
Money flow to beneficiaries and consequent overvaluation established,
confiscation sustainable - See under MISDECLARATION ............ 849
Money-laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) -
Jurisdiction over predicate offence cases - Scope of Section 44(1)(c) ibid
read along with Section 71 ibid - Since non obstante clause in Section
44(1) ibid applies only to procedural matters, impugned Section 71 ibid
cannot support contention that Section 44(1) ibid overrides substantive
law in relation to Statutes covering predicate offence - Section 71 ibid
itself clarifies that provisions of Act shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law - Evidently,
Money Laundering Act, having primacy in field of operation to which
Act extends and within that domain, same to have overriding effect over
any other inconsistent provisions in other Statutes - Section 71 ibid not
omnibus overriding effect over all other Statutes - Section 44(1)(c) and
Section 71 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Inspector of
Police, CBI/SCB v. Asstt. Dir., Directorate of Enforcement (Ker.) ............... 209
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  304