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 Grants Relief, Reduces Penalties for Multiple Parties in Duty Dispute</h1> <h3>GAUTAM TRADES & AGENCIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD, NEW DELHI</h3> GAUTAM TRADES & AGENCIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD, NEW DELHI - 2011 (274) E.L.T. 408 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus.2. Mis-declaration and diversion of imported newsprint paper.3. Imposition of penalties on various parties and individuals.Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus:The appellants, including M/s. Gautam Traders, imported paper under Heading 4801/4802 and claimed exemption under S. Nos. 76, 77, and 78 of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. The condition for this exemption was that the mechanical wood pulp content should not be less than 70%. The Commissioner denied the exemption based on test reports from CRCL, which were not specific. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not address the appellants' submission that initial samples tested by DRI were in their favor. Given the conflicting reports and the lack of clear findings from the Commissioner, the Tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside the demand of differential duty and confiscation of goods imported by M/s. Gautam Traders.2. Mis-declaration and Diversion of Imported Newsprint Paper:The appellants were accused of mis-declaring the wood pulp content and diverting imported newsprint paper. For M/s. Chardi Kalan and M/s. Kissan Mittar, the Tribunal found that the samples tested did not correspond to the reel numbers in the Bill of Entry, making the demand unsustainable. In the case of M/s. Suspense Kahania, the Tribunal upheld the demand as the appellants did not seek retesting in a timely manner, and the test reports indicated a lower wood pulp content than claimed. The Tribunal also upheld the finding of diversion of goods imported by M/s. Suspense Kahania, M/s. Educator, M/s. Chardi Kalan, and M/s. Kissan Mittar, noting that the goods were found in unauthorized premises and corroborated by statements and other evidence.3. Imposition of Penalties:Penalties were imposed on various parties for mis-declaration and diversion. The Tribunal agreed that no separate penalty should be imposed on Shri J.S. Dardi as proprietor of M/s. Suspense Kahania but upheld penalties for his role in diversions related to M/s. Chardi Kalan and M/s. Kissan Mittar. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld a separate penalty on Shri S.K. Gupta for his role in diversions beyond his capacity as a partner of M/s. Gautam Traders. The penalties on M/s. Educator, M/s. Bharat Desh Hamara, M/s. Chardi Kalan, and M/s. Kissan Mittar were reduced to Rs. 50,000 each, and the penalties on Shri S.K. Gupta and Shri J.S. Dardi were reduced to Rs. One lakh each.Conclusion:(a) The demand of duty and confiscation of goods against M/s. Suspense Kahania were upheld, with a reduced redemption fine.(b) The demands and confiscations against M/s. Gautam Traders, M/s. Chardi Kalan, and M/s. Kissan Mittar were set aside.(c) The penalty on M/s. Gautam Traders was set aside.(d) Penalties on M/s. Educator, M/s. Bharat Desh Hamara, M/s. Chardi Kalan, and M/s. Kissan Mittar were reduced to Rs. 50,000 each.(e) Penalties on Shri S.K. Gupta and Shri J.S. Dardi were reduced to Rs. One lakh each.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
