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>Tribunal Confirms Confiscation for Lack of Import License; Reduces Fine and Penalty Due to Excessive Original Imposition.</h1> <h3>HT. COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., HYDERABAD</h3> HT. COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., HYDERABAD - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 507 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Import of used goods without specific license.2. Rejection of declared value and redetermination of value for assessment.3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Import of used goods without specific licenseThe appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Hyderabad-II Commissionerate regarding the import of used goods without the required specific license. The goods imported, being second-hand, required a specific license as per the Foreign Trade Policy. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 111D of the Customs Act for contravening import policy provisions. The appellants contested this decision, arguing that the goods were freely importable as per previous orders by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods due to the absence of the required license for importing second-hand goods.Issue 2: Rejection of declared value and redetermination of value for assessmentThe adjudicating authority rejected the declared value of the imported goods due to discrepancies in quantity and valuation methods. The authority redetermined the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of Customs duty. The appellants argued that minor discrepancies in quantity and non-production of manufacturer's invoice should not be grounds for rejecting the transaction value. They cited various case laws to support their argument. The Tribunal held that to reject the transaction value, the authority must establish grounds as per Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. As there was no evidence of extra payments made outside banking channels, the transaction value declared by the importer was accepted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the valuation aspect, overturning the authority's decision to redetermine the value for assessment.Issue 3: Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs ActThe adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty on the importer under Sections 111D and 112A of the Customs Act, respectively. The appellants contended that the fine and penalty were excessive, citing previous cases where lower rates were applied. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the case and reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the assessable value and the penalty under Section 112A to 5% of the value of the goods. The appeal was allowed in terms of the reduced fines and penalties, acknowledging the excessive nature of the initial imposition.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods due to the absence of a specific license for importing second-hand goods, accepted the declared transaction value, and reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed under the Customs Act based on the circumstances of the case and previous precedents.
TaxTMI 