SANGEETA METALS (INDIA) Vs. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are 3 appeals which arise from Order -in -Original No. 82/2011 -12 -CC (I), dated 16 -3 -2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva. Vide the impugned order, the ld. Adjudicating authority has confirmed a customs duty demand of Rs. 1,40,41,018.42 along with interest thereon on M/s. Sangeeta Metal (India), the importer, apart from imposing an equivalent amount of penalty. He has also imposed penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs on S/Shri Arun Kalidas Shah, the partner of the importing firm and Amulakh Vardichand Shah of M/s. Goodluck Metal Corporation, the Commission Agent, on the imports of 21 consignments of stainless steel coils/sheets imported from M/s. Dai Ichi, USA, by grossly mis -declaring the value of imports. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are before us. Brief facts relating to the case are as follows. M/s. Sangeeta Metal (India) (Sangeeta in short) imported 21 consignments of stainless steel coils/sheets from M/s. Dai Ichi, USA, during the period November 2005 to November, 2006. The goods originated from Finland and were directly supplied to the appellant in India. Of the 21 consignments, in respect of 13 consignments Shri Amulakh Shah of Goodluck Metal Corporation was the Commission Agent. Evidence of undervaluation was retrieved from the computer of Goodluck Metal Corporation where Shri Amulakh Shah was the partner. Evidence of undervaluation in respect of the balance 8 consignments was received from Antwerp Customs (port of loading) through the Indian Embassy at Brussels. These evidences indicated that the total amount of customs duty sought to be evaded worked out to Rs. 1,40,41,018.42. The fact of undervaluation was also admitted by Arun Kalidas Shah, the partner of the importing firm and Amulakh Vardichand Shah of M/s. Goodluck Metal Corporation, the Commission Agent, in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. On conclusion of the investigation, a show cause notice dated 26 -3 -2009 was issued for recovery of escaped duty along with interest and also proposing to impose penalties. The said notice was adjudicated by the impugned order wherein the duty demand was confirmed and penalties imposed. Hence the appeal.

(2.) THE ld. Counsel for the appellants made the following submissions: -

(3.) WE have carefully considered the rival submissions. Our findings and conclusions are discussed in the ensuing paragraphs.