Custom
TRT-2025-
Cestat Chennai
Date:-25-01-23
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Shri Hari Prabhu Vs Shri M. Thirumalai Thiyagarajan
Order Date – 25 January 2023
Key Pointers -
- The appellant, M/s. Southern Clearing & Forwarding Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Raj Bros Shipping Pvt. Ltd., is engaged with Imports and Exports for the clearance of goods declared as men’s shoes, car handling accessories, porcelain tiles, hardware tools, baby car etc.
- The Bill of Entry No. 2548937 dated 21.7.2017 was filed by Customs broker M/s. Southern Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant in C/40065/2021) on behalf of the importer M/s. A.K. Imports and Exports for the clearance of goods declared as men’s shoes, car handling accessories, porcelain tiles, hardware tools, baby car etc.
- M/s. Shenzhen Mosland Trading Co. Ltd. and the assessable value declared was Rs.8.65 lakhs.
- The SIIB officers examined the goods on 27.7.2017 and 28.7.2017 and found in the container many undeclared items in the nature of thread seal tape, LED lights, LED display, watches of various brands containing assorted models, PCBs, electric scooter, fried ice-cream machine, garments etc.
- Show Cause Notices were issued to various parties including the appellants herein for alleged illegal removal of the container using forged documents from the customs area.
- The Tribunal relied in the case of Sri Krishna Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs as reported in 2020 wherein it was held that the charge of undervaluation of goods solely based on statement of the buyer who was not presented for cross-examination is not sustainable in the absence of any documentary evidence to establish when such statement was inconsistent and unreliable.
- In the case of Ram Lal Kataria, it was held that the statement of co-accused alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the other accused is guilty.
- Apart from the statement of Shri Karthikeyan, there is nothing to establish that the appellant had any role in forging documents or removing the container from the CFS area.
- The Tribunal thus held that the department has failed to establish the allegations raised against the appellants.
- The appeal is allowed.
Download Case Law
