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>Import of banned frozen peas penalty upheld under Customs Act, 1962</h1> <h3>HAK AGRO GOODS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA</h3> HAK AGRO GOODS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA - TMI Issues:Penalty imposition on importer for importing banned goods without authorization.Analysis:The appeal and stay application were filed against an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the importer for attempting to import frozen peas, which were banned for importation. The Plant Quarantine authorities confirmed the ban on importing frozen peas due to the threat of 'peas cyst nematode.' The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordered to be destroyed. The penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that they did not authorize the Customs House Agent (CHA) to file the Bill of Entry on their behalf and had sought advice on the importability of the goods. However, the Revenue argued that the CHA submitted all necessary import documents, indicating the appellant's involvement in the importation process.The appellant claimed that they had not authorized the CHA to file the Bill of Entry and had only sought advice regarding the importability of the goods. They argued that they had requested the foreign supplier to take back the goods and were not given a notice or an opportunity to be heard during the confiscation and penalty imposition process. The Revenue contended that the submission of all import documents along with the Bill of Entry indicated the appellant's involvement in the importation process. The Plant Quarantine authorities confirmed the ban on importing frozen peas, leading to the confiscation and destruction of the goods.The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of not authorizing the CHA was not logical, as all necessary import documents were submitted along with the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had directed the CHA to file the Bill of Entry, leading to the imposition of the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision and dismissed the appeal, stating that the penalty imposition was justified. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 