Neutral Citation Number is 2023/DHC/001344

Page 1 of 5

$~32 & 33

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CUSAA 8/2023 & CM APPL. 8597/2023

SH S K JINDAL DIRECTOR

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Priyanka Goel, Adv.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior

Standing

Counsel

for

Revenue with Mr. Kumar

Abhishek and Mr. Gautam

Barnwal, Advs.

+

CUSAA 9/2023 & CM APPL. 8675/2023

M/S BHAVANA JINDAL EXIM PVT. LTD.

THROUGH DIRECTOR

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Priyanka Goel, Adv.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior

Standing

Counsel

for

Revenue with Mr. Kumar

Abhishek and Mr. Gautam

Barnwal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)

1.

The appellants have filed the present appeals impugning an

order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Customs, Excise and

Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereafter ‘the

Digitally Signed

By:SHIKHA SEHGAL

Signing Date:24.02.2023

16:30:56

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number is 2023/DHC/001344

Page 2 of 5

Tribunal’) in the respective appeals preferred by the appellants –

Customs Appeal No. 50306 of 2022 [SM] and Customs Appeal

No. 51272 of 2022 [SM].

2.

M/s Bhavana Jindal Exim Pvt. Limited (appellant in

CUSAA9/2023 and hereafter referred to as ‘the company’) is,

inter alia, engaged in the business of exports. Sh S.K. Jindal

(appellant in CUSAA 8/2023) is one of the directors of the

company.

3.

The controversy arises in the context of two shipping bills

dated 27.01.2017 (Shipping Bill No. 3718938 and 3718934)

which were filed by the company’s CHA (M/s. Sadagati Clearing

Services Pvt. Ltd.).

4.

The shipping bills related to shipment of ‘Leather Apparels

and Leather Gents Long Jacket’, which were being exported to

M/s Unimax Handbags, Los Angeles.

5.

It is the respondent’s case that DRI Officers, on the basis

of some intelligence, examined the goods on 17.02.2017 and on

visual examination, found that those goods were old and used.

6.

Thereafter, the statement of Sh S. K. Jindal (Appellant in

CUSAA 8/2023), was recorded. It is apparent from the said

statement that he admitted that the goods, which were being

exported were old.

7.

Thereafter, the Show Cause Notice dated 02.08.2017 was

issued calling upon the appellants to show cause why penalty

under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the

Customs Act’) not be imposed. It was alleged that the goods

were over-valued to avail a higher duty drawback.

8.

The adjudicating authority adjudicated the said show cause

notice by an order dated 10.01.2019. The adjudicating authority

denied the drawback of ₹ 6,09,976.74/-, claimed on the goods

Digitally Signed

By:SHIKHA SEHGAL

Signing Date:24.02.2023

16:30:56

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number is 2023/DHC/001344

Page 3 of 5

covered under the shipping bills in question. The adjudicating

authority also imposed penalty of ₹5 Lakhs under Section

114(iii) of the Customs Act and a penalty of₹5 Lakhs under

114AA of the Customs Act on the company. In addition penalties

of ₹ 1 Lakh under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs

Act were also imposed on Sh. S.K. Jindal.

9.

It was found that the declared unit price was USD 130

(₹8762) per piece and USD 135 (₹9099) per piece, as mentioned

in the shipping bills. However, the value of the said goods was

determined at ₹500 per unit totalling to ₹3,52,500/. This was also

confirmed by Sh. S K Jindal (appellant in CUSAA 8/2023) in his

statement.

10.

The appellants appealed against the said order dated

10.01.2019 before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

However, the said appeals were rejected by an order dated

01.10.2021.

11.

The appellants carried the matter in appeal before the

Tribunal. These appeals were dismissed by the impugned order.

12.

A plain reading of the pleadings as well as the impugned

ord