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>Customs Act and FERA Appeal: Procedural Irregularities Invalidate Confiscation</h1> <h3>RAJAN INTERNATIONAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of 850 pieces of men's jackets under the Customs Act and FERA due to procedural irregularities. The exporters' ... Confiscation of goods - Show cause notice, scope of Issues:Confiscation of goods for alleged violations under Customs Act and FERA, valuation of goods, imposition of penalties.Confiscation of Goods:The case involved the confiscation of 850 pieces of men's long sleeve jackets due to alleged violations under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). The lower appellate authority had upheld the confiscation with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. one lakh. The exporters had filed a Shipping Bill declaring an export price of Rs. 3,831 per piece, but the goods were found to be of low quality and old stock during examination. The show-cause notice alleged over-invoicing and violation of FERA provisions. The Additional Commissioner upheld the charges, leading to the appeal.Valuation of Goods:The value of the jackets was fixed at Rs. 100 per piece by the Additional Commissioner, which was contested by the exporters. The discrepancy in the declared export price and the actual quality of the goods led to the imposition of penalties and confiscation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation under a different provision than what was mentioned in the show-cause notice, raising issues of procedural fairness and notice to the exporters.Penalties and Procedural Fairness:The exporters argued that the impugned order went beyond the show-cause notice and the adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held the goods liable for confiscation under a provision not mentioned in the notice, which the Revenue failed to counter. The exporters were not notified of the contravention of the specific provision under which the confiscation was upheld. Due to this procedural irregularity, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
