TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CEGAT Tribunal in Mumbai sets aside penalty on software import due to appellant's prompt action and request for reassessment.</h1> <h3>RHONE POULENC (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., ACC, MUMBAI</h3> RHONE POULENC (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., ACC, MUMBAI - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 1000 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Appellant's order for software from a foreign supplier.2. Discrepancy in the value declared by the courier and the actual value of the software.3. Request for reassessment of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.4. The argument regarding the compulsion of filing a bill of entry for remittance.Analysis:1. The appellant placed an order for software from a foreign supplier, and the software was dispatched in a package accompanied by an invoice showing a much lower value than the actual price paid by the appellant. The goods were cleared by the courier at the lower value, but upon opening the package, the appellant discovered the software and sought reassessment of the value for duty purposes.2. The appellant contended that it was not aware of the discrepancy in the declared value by the courier and took immediate steps to contact the customs authorities for correct assessment once the correct position was known. The Commissioner, however, refused to consider this plea, emphasizing the compulsion of filing a bill of entry for remittance as the reason for the appellant's actions.3. The Commissioner's argument regarding the bill of entry requirement was supported by the statement of the appellant's manager. However, it was noted that the appellant, being a regular importer, would have been aware of the standard procedures without specific mention by the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant's letter requesting reassessment and the unchallenged statement of the manager led to the Tribunal extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant regarding the penalty imposed.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, considering the circumstances, the appellant's actions upon discovering the discrepancy, and the lack of explicit acknowledgment from the authorities regarding the reassessment request.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal principles presented during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 