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 modifies redemption fine and penalty amounts, denies waiver appeal citing misdeclaration of goods.</h1> <h3>M/s. Zarina Leather Exports Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-I</h3> M/s. Zarina Leather Exports Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-I - TMI Issues:- Misdeclaration of goods for export under duty drawback scheme- Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty- Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner(Appeals)- Appeal for waiver of reduced penaltyAnalysis:1. Misdeclaration of Goods:The case involved the misdeclaration of goods for export under the duty drawback scheme. The appellant declared unfinished leather as finished leather, attempting to claim a fraudulent drawback. The Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) confirmed that the samples were not of finished leather, leading to the confiscation of the goods.2. Confiscation and Imposition of Fine and Penalty:The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 3.50 lakhs and a penalty of &8377; 1.50 lakhs under Sections 125 and 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, respectively. The appellant appealed for waiver of these amounts before the Commissioner(Appeals).3. Reduction of Fine and Penalty:The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 2.65 lakhs and the penalty to &8377; 1 lakh. The reduction was based on considerations of the appellant's submissions and the facts of the case. The appellant further appealed for a waiver of the reduced penalty.4. Judicial Precedents and Final Decision:The appellate tribunal referred to various judicial pronouncements to support the decision. It was noted that misdeclaration, even if unintentional, renders the goods liable for confiscation and the imposition of fine and penalty. The tribunal upheld the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty, considering the FOB value of the impugned goods.In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original with modifications to the redemption fine and penalty. The appeal was dismissed, as there was no infirmity in the impugned order. The decision was based on the misdeclaration of goods, the application of legal principles, and relevant judicial precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
