1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal reduces fines for mis-declaration, upholds confiscation, and justifies penalties.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods due to mis-declaration but reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs and the penalty from ... - Issues:Mis-declaration of quantity, description, and value in import of acrylic off-cuts and sheets; Provisional release of goods pending enquiries; Confiscation of goods; Imposition of redemption fine and penalty; Discrepancy in declared weight and actual weight of goods.Analysis:The appellant imported a consignment of acrylic off-cuts and sheets, seeking examination on a first check basis, which revealed a discrepancy in the quantity and description of the goods. The original authority finalized the value by enhancing it due to mis-declaration, leading to confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 32,76,033, with a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the importer. The appellant contested the mis-declaration allegations, arguing that the declared value was accurate, and challenged the confiscation and penalty. The value discrepancy was highlighted, with the appellant claiming that the enhanced value was not based on contemporaneous import prices. The Commissioner's findings were reiterated by the SDR, leading to a detailed analysis by the Tribunal.The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and noted the discrepancy in the goods imported, with acrylic sheets being imported by others at a lower price than what was adopted for the appellant's consignment. While the enhancement of off-cuts value was deemed justified based on contemporaneous import prices, the enhancement of acrylic sheets' value was found unjustified. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation due to mis-declaration but acknowledged a scope for reducing the redemption fine and penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal reworked the values of off-cuts and acrylic sheets, reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision addressed the mis-declaration issues, discrepancies in declared and actual weights, and the justification for confiscation, while also considering the appropriate values for the imported goods and reducing the redemption fine and penalty based on the revised values and circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
