NAMASTE EXPORTS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are based on common facts, therefore these are taken together for decision. Appeal No, C/443/99 is against the Order -in -Original No. 19/99 (Commr -AIR) dated 6.9.99 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai whereas Appeal No. C/21/2000, is against the Order -in -original No. 82/99 dtd. 17.11.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chennai. Appeal No. C/7/2001, is filed by the Revenue against the Order No. 82/99 dtd. 17.11.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chennai.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit, Chennai received specific information that M/s G. Pratap Kumar and Co., (hereinafter referred to as M/s GPK) are an indenting agent in India for M/s Munzing Chemie GMBH, Germany (hereinafter referred to as M/s MCG) for leather chemicals manufactured by them. They have made arrangement on behalf of some of the importers who have placed indent through them for import of leather chemicals to evade customs duty by mis -declaring the description of the goods to Customs. Based on the information, the officers of DRI visited premises of M/s GPK on 10.9.97. The officers found that from the said premises, a partnership concern dealing and trading in imported and indigenous chemicals was also functioning in the name of Ashok Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as M/s AES). During investigation, M/s AES handed over certain documents relating to M/s AES and M/s GPK to the officers of DRI. After scrutiny of the documents and conducting further investigations, the DRI officers found that M/s GPK, an indenting agent had wilfully mis -stated the description of the goods manufactured by M/s MCG and imported by several importers in order to evade customs duty due on imports by colluding with the manufacturer M/s MCG and also by raising false fabricated documents relating to import namely packing slip, invoices, etc. M/s MCG, the foreign supplier have supplied various chemicals by false labeling of chemical drugs with the connivance of M/s AES and M/s GPK. M/s Namaste Exports Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NEL) who imported the goods from M/s MCG, through the above said indenting agent have mis -stated the actual description of the goods imported from M/s MCG on the documents namely packing slip, invoices in collusion with M/s MCG and indenting agent M/s GPK and thereby resorted to evasion of customs duty. M/s NEL mis -declared the description of degreasing agent as synthetic fat liquor so that same can be imported duty free under the DEEC scheme. Based on the investigation conducted by the DRI, separate show cause notices were issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai and Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chennai for the offending goods imported by M/s NEL through their respective ports. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai in his Order -in -Original No. 19/99 dtd. 6.9.99 demanded duty of Rs. 2,85,936 under Section 28 of the Customs Act on clearance of Metolat -D vide Bill of Entry No. 10369 dtd. 18.11.93, 17941 dtd. 22.3.96 and 21117 dtd. 9.4.96 under DEEC Scheme. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,85,936 on M/s NEL under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. For the goods cleared through Chennai Seaport, the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) under his Order No. 82/99 dtd. 17.11.99 demanded duty of Rs. 6,11,029 under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 41,339 under Section 114A of the Customs Act in respect of the goods cleared under Bill of Entry No, 1872 dtd. 10.1.97. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s NEL in respect of goods cleared under Bill of Entry Nos. 36923 dtd. 28.7.95 and 24846 dtd. 21.5.96 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) Appeals were filed on behalf of M/s NEL against both the orders of Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) as well as Commissioner of Customs (Airport). However, the Department has filed the appeal only against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) for imposing penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act equal to the duty demanded under the order.