ASHWIN S. MEHTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner holds that the appellant Shri Manharlal Vora was the real importer of goods cleared under 12 bills of entry filed by Deep Corp. and Niki Traders, that the value declared in those bills of entry did not represent the transaction value; that the real value of the goods, i.e. spherical roller bearings, was indicated in the invoices issued by D.V. International (H.K) Ltd. to Deep Corp; that the real value of NSK Brand Bearings with housings was indicated in the invoices issued by D.V. International to Niki Traders; that Deep Corp. and Niki Traders were set up by Vora to import bearings and bearing housings grossly undervaluing them; that the differential duty is demandable from Vora and the grossly undervalued bearings and bearing housings were liable to confiscation. He imposed penalties on Shri Vora of Nippon Bearings, Ashwin Mehta, his manager, and Shalin Vora, his son who assisted him in the affairs of M/s. Nippon Bearings. These then are the appellants before us.

(2.) MISDECLARATION of value of imported goods, demand for differential duty thereon, liability of the goods in question to confiscation and the liability to penalty under the Customs Act are the issues. The issue as to the person from whom differential duty can be demanded, i.e. whether from the person/persons who held themselves to be importers by filing the bills of entry or from the person/persons who is/are alleged to have caused the imports from behind the scenes has to be addressed first. In the present case the Commissioner held that Deep Corp. and Niki Traders are the fronts - are nothing but dummies - therefore differential duty has to be demanded from Nippon Bearings, the de facto importer. The Commissioner held that the goods imported by the dummies were heavily under invoiced.

(3.) THE factual backdrop is somewhat like this.