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>Appellate tribunal overturns confiscation ruling, clarifies Customs Act provisions.</h1> <h3>TREND SETTERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), MUMBAI </h3> The appellate tribunal ruled against the confiscation of goods under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, finding no basis for confiscation as the ... - Issues:1. Confiscation of goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty under Section 114.2. Applicability of Section 117 of the Customs Act for contravention of provisions.Analysis:Issue 1: Confiscation of goods under Section 113 and imposition of penalty under Section 114The case involved an appeal against a redemption fine and penalty imposed in connection with the export of goods declared as 'mill-made other than grey printed cotton made-ups.' The goods were found to be dyed bed-sheets upon examination, not printed cotton made-ups as claimed. The department proposed confiscation and penalty, which the exporter agreed to without a show-cause notice. The Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The appeal challenged this order, questioning the application of Sections 113 and 114. The appellate tribunal noted that neither the goods were prohibited nor dutiable, and no specific clause under Section 113 was cited. The tribunal held that Sections 113 and 114 were misapplied as there was no basis for confiscation. The redemption fine was deemed unsustainable.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 117 for contraventionThe appellant admitted misdeclaration in the shipping bill, seeking undue DEPB credit. The tribunal found the declaration under Section 50(2) to be false, leading to misdeclaration for securing benefits. The appellant was held liable under Section 117 for contravening the Act with a penalty of Rs. 1,000. The penalty under Section 114 was set aside, and the redemption fine was annulled. The tribunal modified the impugned order accordingly, imposing the penalty under Section 117 and disposing of the appeal.In conclusion, the tribunal ruled against the confiscation of goods under Sections 113 and 114, instead applying Section 117 for contravention. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,000, and the redemption fine was set aside. The decision clarified the misapplication of sections and upheld penalties based on relevant provisions of the Customs Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
