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>Appeal restored after non-prosecution, Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on Customs Act penalty issue.</h1> <h3>M/s Add International Versus CC Kandla </h3> M/s Add International Versus CC Kandla - 2012 (284) E.L.T. 233 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Restoration of appeal due to non-prosecution.2. Enhancement of value of imported goods.3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.Issue 1: Restoration of appeal due to non-prosecutionThe appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, and an application for restoration was filed. After hearing both sides, it was found that the appellant had justified the reasons for non-appearance. Consequently, the final order was recalled, and the appeal was restored to its original number. With the consent of both sides, the appeal, dating back to 2006, was taken up for disposal.Issue 2: Enhancement of value of imported goodsThe main issue in this appeal was the enhancement of the value of goods imported into India. The appellant had imported 6 containers of goods by a contract and made an import value payment to the foreign supplier. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant for not clearing the goods timely, leading to the enhancement of the consignment's value and imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 by the adjudicating authority. The appellant contested the notice, claiming that the goods were abandoned and the foreign supplier had contracted to sell them to another entity.Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962The appellant argued against the imposition of a penalty, stating that they had abandoned the goods, and the foreign supplier had transferred the goods to another buyer. The Revenue authorities contended that the appellant was still liable as they had held themselves out as an importer. After considering both sides' submissions and examining the facts, the Tribunal found that the appellant could not be penalized under Section 112 as the contract had broken down, the foreign supplier had sought changes in import documents, and requested re-export of the goods.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment clarified that the appellant could not be penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the contract had broken down, and the foreign supplier had taken actions indicating the appellant was no longer the importer.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
