TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Stay Order Issued for Rs. 70 Crores Goods Release | Prevent Revenue Loss</h1> The Tribunal has directed the stay of the provisional release order for goods valued at Rs. 70 crores due to concerns over ownership discrepancies and ... Illegal clearance of goods - Attempt to clear goods from ICD Dhannad, Indore for re-transport to Mumbai for sale thereof by the appellant who was not the owner - Provisional release of goods - Held that:- black money was in circulation against the transactions and those transactions appear to be hawala one which calls for serious investigation to protect interest of the Revenue and the economy. It was also observed by the Committee that in the past no remittance was made. Further observation of the Committee throws light that Manjit Singh has no means to make huge import but appears to be a bubble to give shelter to the evaders. It also appears that there was an organized bid to conceal real importers of various goods causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue. We also surprise why the goods are not cleared in Navsheva but brought to Dhannad, Indore for clearance and after clearance the goods are sent to Mumbai for sale - provisional order dated 5.11.2013 shall be kept in abeyance till further order of Tribunal - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues: Urgent Stay Application for Provisional Release of Seized GoodsAnalysis:1. Urgency of the Matter: The case involves an urgent application for the stay of provisional release of goods valued at Rs. 70 crores, attempted to be cleared for re-transport without proper ownership documentation.2. Provisional Release Order Dispute: The Revenue challenges the provisional release order dated 5.11.2013, arguing that the claimant of the seized goods is not the bonafide owner and that the provisional release decision was based on an affidavit without proper scrutiny or reports from relevant authorities.3. Revenue's Interest Prejudiced: The Revenue contends that allowing provisional release could prejudice their interest, as the real owners of the goods might disappear, hindering the investigation. The Committee of Chief Commissioners suspects hawala transactions and an organized attempt to conceal real importers, impacting Revenue and the economy.4. Non-Existent Parties and IEC Code Issues: The IEC code in the bill of entry relates to non-existent parties, with 18 parties being non-existent and 4 disowning the import. This discrepancy necessitates a thorough investigation and lifting of the corporate veil to identify and bring the offenders to justice.5. Tribunal's Decision: Considering the prima facie observations and the potential obstruction to the investigation and Revenue's interest, the Tribunal directs the provisional release order to be kept in abeyance until further orders. The Registrar is instructed to inform the concerned Chief Commissioner and Commissioner for necessary action, while the JCDR is tasked with forwarding the order to the DRI for appropriate action. Additionally, a notice is to be issued to the claimant for a stay hearing on a specified date.This judgment addresses urgent concerns regarding the provisional release of seized goods, highlighting discrepancies in ownership claims, potential revenue loss, and the need for a thorough investigation to uncover fraudulent practices. The Tribunal's decision to stay the provisional release order reflects a cautious approach to protect the interests of the Revenue and ensure a fair and comprehensive investigation into the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
